A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimal tissue acquisition method for pancreatic mass

Pancreatic masses pose a diagnostic difficulty due to the technical complexities related to tissue acquisition. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has transformed the field by allowing access to pancreatic lesions through fine-needle and biopsy. However, diagnostic accuracy differs based on tumor characteristics and procedural factors. This narrative review explores the nuances of tissue acquisition methods for pancreatic tumors, including factors such as tumor location, size, histological characteristics, and needle selection. It assesses the efficacy of different needle designs and maneuvers, including suction techniques and needle passes. Moreover, the diverse tissue preparation methods, including cytological smear, cell block, and direct histology, are discussed, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches based on tumor characteristics. Additionally, the roles of macroscopic on-site evaluation and rapid on-site evaluation in optimizing specimen adequacy are investigated. Furthermore, percutaneous ultrasound-guided biopsy is considered an alternative approach, particularly in settings where EUS is impractical. Additionally, the review emphasizes the emerging trend of using tissue for genetic testing and molecular analysis, requiring high-quality sample acquisition. Future directions in tissue acquisition techniques and their integration into clinical practice are discussed, providing promising avenues for pancreatic disease diagnosis and treatment.

III BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

BACKGROUND

•Since its inception in the 1980s, endoscopic ultrasound has increased relevance and usefulness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

•Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved from solely diagnostic imaging to a valuable method for tissue sampling and therapeutic procedures, such as drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and creating gastrointestinal anastomoses under EUS guidance.

BACKGROUND

•Given the rapid advancements in EUS and new devices, an update to the last Consensus must include recent developments.

BACKGROUND

•Experts evaluated and discussed the best evidence on EUS-guided procedures and devices for tissue sampling, pancreatic and liver disease management, and biliary drainage.

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, endoscopic ultrasound has developed from a diagnostic tool to a platform for many therapeutic interventions. Various technological advancements have emerged since the last Brazilian Consensus, demanding a review and update of the recommendations based on the best scientific evidence.

METHODS

A group of 32 renowned echoendoscopists selected eight relevant topics to be discussed to generate clinical questions. After that, a literature review was conducted to answer these questions based on the most updated evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-three statements were formulated and voted on by the experts to reach a consensus. The Oxford System was used to grade the level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is mo-derate evidence to support that the needle shape, gauge, or aspiration technique does not influence the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. There is moderate evidence to support using EUS-TTNB of the cyst wall to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. There is little evidence to support the EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices. There is a high level of evidence to support that EUS-guided biliary drainage and ERCP present similar outcomes in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. There is a high level of evidence for using EUS to diagnose neoplastic pancreatic cysts and detect necrosis before indicating drainage. There is moderate evidence to support EUS-GE over duodenal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in patients with a life expectancy higher than 2 months. There is a high level of evidence to support the use of RFA in treating both functioning and non-functioning types of NET.

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) can overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided acquisition by identifying microvessels inside inhomogeneous tumours and improving the characterization of these tumours. Despite the initial enthusiasm that oriented needle sampling under CH-EUS guidance could provide better diagnostic yield in pancreatic solid lesions, further studies did not confirm the supplementary values in cases of tissue acquisition guided by CH-EUS. This review details the knowledge based on the available data on contrast-guided procedures. The indications for CH-EUS tissue acquisition include isoechoic EUS lesions with poor visible delineation where CH-EUS can differentiate the lesion vascularisation from the surrounding parenchyma and also the mural nodules within biliopancreatic cystic lesions, which occur in select cases. Additionally, the roles of CH-EUS-guided therapy in patients whose pancreatic fluid collections or bile ducts that have an echogenic content have indications for drainage, and patients who have nonvisualized vessels that need to be highlighted via Doppler EUS are presented. Another indication is represented if there is a need for an immediate assessment of the post-radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, in which case CH-EUS can be used to reveal the incomplete tumour destruction.

The yield of cytology and histology obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA, -FNB) are the mainstay for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Traditionally, FNA was performed for obtaining cytology and also histology if available from the puncture. Since their advent, however, FNB needles have been intended mainly to obtain core biopsies for histological specimens.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the yield of cytology obtained via both FNA and FNB needles.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including all patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma obtained via EUS-FNA/FNB needles.

RESULTS

Overall, 227 patients were included. Of them, 85 patients underwent FNB, versus 142 patients who had FNA. The average age in the FNB group was 70.46 ± 11.29 years, versus 71.44 ± 11.80 in the FNA group, P = 0.57. Notably, cytological analysis diagnosed malignancy equally in both groups (69.4% in the FNB group, vs. 65.5% in the FNA group). The compatibility rate of cytology with histology was 76.5% in the FNB group, versus 76.1% in the FNA group (P = 0.69). The agreement level between cytology obtained by FNA and FNB, versus histology obtained by both needles, was moderate (kappa = 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.57). Similarly, the agreement level between cytology and histology in the FNB group was moderate as well (kappa = 0.5, 95% CI 0.36-0.64).

CONCLUSION

Cytological assessment yielded an equal performance as compared to histological assessment with both needles. We recommend obtaining cytology specimens in pancreatic solid lesion puncture by FNB needle.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today's era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND

The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding.

RESULTS

A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09-4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49-4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2-4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Compare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation performed by endoscopists in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most established diagnostic method for pancreatic tissue. Rapid on-site evaluation by a trained endoscopist (self-ROSE) can improve the diagnostic accuracy. This research is aimed to analyze the application value of self-ROSE for EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A total of 194 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to EUS-FNA with or without self-ROSE in this single-center randomized controlled trial. Before initiating self-ROSE, the endoscopist underwent training for pancreatic cytologic sample adequacy assessment and cytopathological diagnosis of EUS-FNA in pathology department for 1 month. Some parts of the slides of EUS-FNA were air dried, stained on-site with BASO Liu's reagent, and on-site evaluated in self-ROSE group. Between the two groups, the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA was analyzed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with a comparison of the number of needle passes and the complication rates.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.8%, 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 58.3% in the self-ROSE group, respectively, and 70.1%, 65.1%, 100%, 100%, and 32.6% in the non-self-ROSE group. The diagnostic accuracy (P < 0.001) and sensitivity (P < 0.001) were both significantly increased during EUS-FNA in the self-ROSE group compared to the non-self-ROSE group. The rate of cytologic sample adequacy was 100% in self-ROSE group and 80.4% in non-self-ROSE group. The number of passes were 3.38 ± 1.00 in self-ROSE group and 3.22 ± 0.89 in non-self-ROSE group (P = 0.228). No complications were found in both. There was acceptable consistency between endoscopist and pathologist in the cytopathological diagnosis (kappa = 0.666, P < 0.05) and in the sample adequacy rate (kappa = 1.000, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that self-ROSE is valuable for EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions and is an important choice to routinely increase the accuracy of EUS-FNA in centers without ROSE assessment.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic mass without ROSE: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is an established diagnostic procedure for solid pancreatic mass. However, the diagnostic yield between fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields between FNA and FNB using conventional FNA and Franseen needles of the same size 22-gauge needle, in patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-TA without rapid onsite cytopathology evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

All cases of EUS-TA by FNA or FNB for solid pancreatic mass between January 2017 and October 2020 in a single-centre university hospital were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures were performed without an onsite cytologist. Before the endoscopist finished the procedure, macroscopic onsite evaluation (MOSE) was confirmed. The diagnostic yield and the average number of needle passes between FNB and FNA were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients (FNA, n = 77; FNB, n = 74) with solid pancreatic mass detected by cross-sectional imaging underwent EUS-TA. The mean age was 62.3 ± 12.8 years, with 88 (58.3%) males. Age, sex, mass location, tumour size and disease stage from imaging were not significantly different between the two groups. The diagnostic performance was higher in EUS-FNB (94.6%) than in EUS-FNA (89.6%). The mean number of needle passes was clearly fewer in FNB than in FNA (2.8 vs. 3.8, p < 0.001). The total procedure time was shorter in FNB (34.7 min) than in FNA (41 min). The adverse event rate between FNB and FNA was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic mass was higher in FNB using the Franseen needle than in FNA using the conventional FNA needle in a centre where ROSE is unavailable, without serious adverse event. In addition, FNB had fewer needle passes and shorter total procedure time.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed.

AIM

To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles. Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions (n = 468 FNA; n = 700 FNB) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean age was 65.02 ± 12.13 years. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA (84.70% vs 74.53%; 99.29% vs 96.62%; and 87.62% vs 81.55%, respectively; P < 0.001). On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE [(81.66% vs 86.45%; P = 0.142), (100% vs 100%; P = 1.00) and (88.40% vs 85.43%; P = 0.320]. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy. On subgroup analyses, FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions; however, there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions. One adverse event was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions. Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

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.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound

Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become widely accepted and has considerable advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging modalities, given that it enables echostructure assessment in lesions with <1 cm diameter and permits high resolution imaging. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) provides consistent results under ultrasound guidance and has been considered more effective compared to CT- or ultrasound-guided lesion biopsy. Moreover, complication rates, including pancreatitis and bleeding, have been extremely low, with <1% morbidity and mortality rates, thereby suggesting the exceptional overall safety of EUS-TA. The aggressive use of EUS for various lesions has been key in facilitating early diagnosis and therapy. This review summarizes the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used. EUS has played an important role in diagnosing these lesions and planning treatment strategies. Future developments in EUS imaging technology, such as producing images close to histopathological findings, are expected to further improve its diagnostic ability. Moreover, tissue acquisition via EUS is expected to be used for precision medicine, which facilitates the selection of an appropriate therapeutic agent by increasing the amount of tissue collected and improving genetic analysis.

Personalized Approach to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreaticobiliary Malignancies

Pancreaticobiliary malignancies arise from different areas within the pancreas and biliary tree. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-recognized diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, and more specifically, pancreaticobiliary malignancies. Traditionally used for diagnostic purposes, EUS plays a critical role in tissue sampling and cancer staging. The emergence of the new field of interventional EUS has allowed EUS to also play a critical role in therapeutic management. Novel interventional EUS procedures such as EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GE), EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GLB) can be utilized to treat complications of pancreaticobiliary malignancies such as gastric outlet obstruction, obstructive jaundice, and cholecystitis. In addition, interventional EUS procedures can be utilized for the palliation of unresectable malignancies both for source control with EUS-radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) and for the treatment of abdominal pain refractory to opioid medications with EUS-guided celiac axis neurolysis. However, patient selection remains a critical component in both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and must be tailored to individual patient wishes, disease pathology, and overall prognosis.

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.

Advances in Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS): A Technical Review

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the therapeutic intervention of choice for multiple diseases and continues to evolve rapidly. Its increasing use has allowed the development and adaptation of multiple, revolutionary devices and tools. Currently, there is paucity of randomized clinical trials evaluating multiple EUS-guided interventions and the vast majority of published data is heterogenous. However, the available literature on EUS-guided therapeutic interventions continues to expand and demonstrate its safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness in carefully selected patients when performed by expert endosonographers. The future of interventional EUS appears to be bright!

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

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

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

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.

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

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

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling.

Methods

This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events.

Results

A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort.

Conclusions

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUS-FNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.

The "Twist-Needle" - a new concept for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle-biopsy

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) represents a standard method for tissue acquisition of lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall. Needles of 19 gauge acquire more tissue than needles with a smaller diameter, but are often unable to penetrate solid, rigid masses. In this study we evaluated a novel prototype that links forward movement of the needle to rotation of the needle tip. Materials and methods  Two needle-models that generate either a regular axial movement or a combination of axial movement with rotation of the needle tip were compared ex vivo for measurement of pressure needed to penetrate artificial tissue. Furthermore, a standard 19-gauge EUS-FNB needle was compared to a modified model ("Twist Needle") in an ex vivo model to measure the amount of tissue obtained. Results  Pressure measurements using the rotating needle revealed that significantly less pressure is needed for penetration compared to the regular axial movement (mean ± SEM; 3.7 ± 0.3 N vs. 5.5 ± 0.3 N). Using the modified 19-gauge "Twist Needle" did not diminish tissue acquisition measured by surface amount compared to a standard needle (37 ± 5 mm² vs. 35 ± 6 mm²). Conclusion  The method of rotation of an EUS-FNB needle tip upon forward movement requires less pressure for penetration but does not diminish tissue acquisition. Hence, the concept of our "Twist Needle" may potentially reduce some of the current limitations of standard EUS-FNB.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Based Tissue Sampling in Suspected Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis of Same-Session Procedures

Background/Aims:

The diagnosis of biliary strictures can be challenging. There are no systematic reviews studying same-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of biliary strictures.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted on studies analyzing same-session EUS and ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. The primary outcome was the accuracy of each method individually compared to the two methods combined. The secondary outcome was the accuracy of each method in pancreatic and biliary etiologies. In the meta-analysis, we used Forest plots, summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and estimates of the area under the curve for intention-to-treat analysis.

Results:

Of the 12,132 articles identified, six were included, resulting in a total of 497 patients analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and accuracy of the association between the two methods were: 86%, 98%, 12.50, 0.17, and 96.5%, respectively. For the individual analysis, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 76%, 100%, and 94.5%, respectively; for ERCP-based tissue sampling, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 58%, 98%, and 78.1%, respectively. For pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA was superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling. However, for biliary lesions, both methods had similar sensitivities.

Conclusions:

Same-session EUS-FNA and ERCP-based tissue sampling is superior to either method alone in the diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. Considering these results, combination sampling should be performed when possible.

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.