scholarly journals Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1359-E1364
Author(s):  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takashi Sasaki ◽  
Ryo Kanata ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Tsuyoshi Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Abscess ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is sometimes required to diagnose small solid pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions and the differences in diagnostic yield among different needles. Patients and method We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions less than 2 cm between November 2012 and June 2019. Three types of needles were evaluated in this study: a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) Lancet needle, a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel, and a 22-gauge FNB Franseen needle. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure using these needles. Results We analyzed 160 patients with 163 lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.0 %, 100 %, and 92.6 %, respectively. In the histological plus cytological diagnosis, accuracies of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 92.7 %, 97.0 %, and 85.7 %, respectively (P = 0.10). In the histological diagnosis alone, the negative predictive values (NPVs) of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 13.3 %, 53.3 %, and 27.3 %, respectively (P = 0.08). Adverse events occurred in four cases (2.5 %): one postprocedural bleeding, two cases of pancreatitis, and one pancreatic abscess. Conclusions EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggested a difference in the diagnostic yield of each needle for small solid pancreatic lesions.

In memoriam: Fine‐needle aspiration, birth: Fine‐needle biopsy: The changing trend in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Young Bang ◽  
Sachin Kirtane ◽  
Konrad Krall ◽  
Udayakumar Navaneethan ◽  
Muhammad Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Changing Trend ◽  
In Memoriam

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

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Akashi Fujita ◽  
Shomei Ryozawa ◽  
Yuki Tanisaka ◽  
Tomoya Ogawa ◽  
Masahiro Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Genetic Sequencing ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Interventional Eus ◽  
Tissue Acquisition

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.

scholarly journals Fine-needle biopsy is superior to fine-needle aspiration of suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a large multicenter study

2019 ◽  
Vol 07 (07) ◽  
pp. E931-E936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind J. Trindade ◽  
Petros C. Benias ◽  
Mohammed Alshelleh ◽  
Ahmad N. Bazarbashi ◽  
Benjamin Tharian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Stromal Tumors

Abstract Background and study aims There are numerous studies published on the diagnostic yield of the new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles in pancreas masses. However, there are limited studies in suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST lesions). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a new fork-tip FNB needle. Patients and methods This was a multicenter retrospective study of consecutive patients from prospectively maintained databases comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) using the fork-tip needle. Outcomes measured were cytopathology yield (ability to obtain tissue for analysis of cytology), ability to analyze the tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC yield), and diagnostic yield (ability to provide a definitive diagnosis). Results A total of 147 patients were included in the study of which 101 underwent EUS-FNB and 46 patients underwent EUS-FNA. Median lesion size in each group was similar (21 mm vs 25 mm, P = 0.25). Cytopathology yield, IHC yield, and diagnostic yield were 92 % vs 46 % (P = 0.001), 89 % vs 41 % (P = 0.001), and 89 % vs 37 % (P = 0.001) between the FNB and FNA groups, respectively. Median number of passes was the same between the two groups at 3.5. Conclusion EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA for diagnostic yield of suspected GIST lesions. This should be confirmed with a prospective study.

scholarly journals IS THE NEW PROCORE 20G DOUBLE FORWARD-BEVEL NEEDLE CAPABLE TO OBTAIN BETTER HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING SOLID PANCREATIC LESIONS?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Celso ARDENGH ◽  
Vitor Ottoboni BRUNALDI ◽  
Mariângela Ottoboni BRUNALDI ◽  
Alberto Facuri GASPAR ◽  
Jorge Resende LOPES-JÚNIOR ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Biopsy Methods ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Adequate Tissue

ABSTRACT Background: It is important to obtain representative histological samples of solid biliopancreatic lesions without a clear indication for resection. The role of new needles in such task is yet to be determined. Aim: To compare performance assessment between 20G double fine needle biopsy (FNB) and conventional 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy. Methods: This prospective study examined 20 patients who underwent the random puncture of solid pancreatic lesions with both needles and the analysis of tissue samples by a single pathologist. Results: The ProCore 20G FNB needle provided more adequate tissue samples (16 vs. 9, p=0.039) with better cellularity quantitative scores (11 vs. 5, p=0.002) and larger diameter of the histological sample (1.51±1.3 mm vs. 0.94±0.55 mm, p=0.032) than the 22G needle. The technical success, puncture difficulty, and sample bleeding were similar between groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 88.9%, 100%, and 90% and 77.8%, 100%, and 78.9% for the 20G and 22G needles, respectively. Conclusions: The samples obtained with the ProCore 20G FNB showed better histological parameters; although there was no difference in the diagnostic performance between the two needles, these findings may improve pathologist performance.

scholarly journals Pull vs. wet: rendimiento diagnóstico y calidad de las muestras de las PAAF guiadas por USE en las masas sólidas del páncreas

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document