scholarly journals PBF-Guided Biopsy with a Novel Puncture Biopsy Forceps Needle—Feasibility Study

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1638
Author(s):  
Geke Litjens ◽  
Christian Gerges ◽  
Yogesh M. Shastri ◽  
Piyush Somani ◽  
Torsten Beyna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Biopsy ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Biopsy Forceps ◽  
Pancreatic Lesion ◽  
Novel Device ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Puncture Biopsy ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
Subepithelial Lesion

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) to diagnose lesions in the gastrointestinal tract is common. Demand for histology sampling to identify treatment-specific targets is increasing. Various core biopsy FNB needles to obtain tissue for histology are currently available, however, with variable (37–97%) histology yields. In this multicenter study, we evaluated performance, safety, and user experience of a novel device (the puncture biopsy forceps (PBF) needle). Twenty-four procedures with the PBF needle were performed in 24 patients with a suspected pancreatic lesion (n = 10), subepithelial lesion (n = 10), lymph node (n = 3), or pararectal mass (n = 1). In 20/24 (83%) procedures, the PBF needle yielded sufficient material for interpretation (sample adequacy). In 17/24 (71%), a correct diagnosis was made with the material from the PBF needle (diagnostic accuracy). All participating endoscopists experienced a learning curve. (Per)procedural technical issues occurred in four cases (17%), but there were no adverse events. The PBF needle is a safe and potentially useful device to obtain an EUS-guided biopsy specimen. As the design of the PBF needle is different to core biopsy FNB needles, specific training will likely further improve the performance of the PBF needle. Furthermore, the design of the needle needs further improvement to make it more robust in clinical practice.

scholarly journals First experience of obtaining pancreatic tissue with a puncture biopsy forceps versus fine needle aspiration

Endoscopy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (S 01) ◽  
pp. E609-E610
Author(s):  
Geke Litjens ◽  
Monica Marijnissen-van Zanten ◽  
Ilse van Engen-van Grunsven ◽  
Erwin-Jan van Geenen
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Tissue ◽  
Biopsy Forceps ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Puncture Biopsy

scholarly journals Simplified Submucosal Tunneling Biopsy Using Clip-With-Line Traction and Closure for Gastric Subepithelial Lesion

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 690
Author(s):  
Hideki Kobara ◽  
Nobuya Kobayashi ◽  
Noriko Nishiyama ◽  
Naoya Tada ◽  
Shintaro Fujihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Convenient Method ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Mesenchymal Tumors ◽  
Widespread Application ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
Subepithelial Lesion ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions ◽  
Immunohistological Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has emerged as a standard and convenient method for the sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs). Immunohistological analysis is required to definitively distinguish mesenchymal tumors; however, EUS-FNA provides insufficient material to achieve this, especially for small SELs < 2 cm. We therefore previously reported a novel submucosal tunneling biopsy (STB) technique that utilizes endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for sampling SELs. However, unresolved advanced technical issues have hindered its widespread application. Currently, a counter-traction technique is used to facilitate ESD. We here describe a technically simplified STB technique using clip-with-line traction for gastric SELs.

Experience with EUS-guided biopsy using the Puncture Biopsy Forceps

Pancreatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. S73
Author(s):  
Geke Litjens ◽  
Yogesh Shastri ◽  
Piyush Somani ◽  
John Hermans ◽  
Peter Siersema ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biopsy Forceps ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Puncture Biopsy

scholarly journals A269 EUS-GUIDED ROSE FNA AND CNB FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF PANCREATIC CANCER: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 146-147
Author(s):  
A Almudaires ◽  
G Williams ◽  
S E Gruchy ◽  
A Morgenthau
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Pancreatic Lesion ◽  
Site Evaluation

Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with Rapid On Site Evaluation (ROSE EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (EUS-CNB) are widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. There is no known published randomized control trial that compares between the two modalities. Given the aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer, it is crucial to make a prompt diagnosis in order to initiate treatment in a timely fashion. Aims This study compares the diagnostic performance of ROSE EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent ROSE EUS-FNA and/ or EUS-CNB for solid pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield (defined as percentage of diagnostic samples), diagnostic accuracy (defined as percentage of correct diagnosis), sensitivity and specificity for malignancy were compared between ROSE EUS- FNA and EUS- CNB. Baseline characteristics for both patients and lesions were also obtained. Results A total of 82 patients with solid pancreatic lesions were reviewed. 84 EUS with 61 FNA and 74 CNB were performed. The diagnostic yield was 42/61 (69%) and 59/74 (79.7%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.166). The diagnostic accuracy was 33/61 (54%) and 53/74 (71%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.0326). 50 patients underwent both FNA and CNB during the same EUS. The calculated diagnostic yield among this subgroup was 33/50 (66%) and 39/50 (78%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.265); with diagnostic accuracy of 26/50 (52%) for FNA and 34/50 (68%) for CNB (P 0.152). The diagnostic accuracy after combining both techniques was 40/50 (80%). The incremental increase in diagnostic yield by combining both methods was 12/50 (24%) and 6/50 (12%) relative to FNA and CNB respectively. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy for FNA and CNB was 60.8% and 92.7%, respectively. The specificity was 100% for both methods. Conclusions EUS-guided CNB is a superior method of assessing solid pancreatic lesion and pancreatic malignancy with better diagnostic yield and accuracy and higher sensitivity than ROSE EUS-FNA. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Clinical Value of CT-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Tissue-Core Biopsy of Thoracic Masses in the Dog and Cat

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 883
Author(s):  
Massimo Vignoli ◽  
Roberto Tamburro ◽  
Andrea Felici ◽  
Francesca Del Signore ◽  
Annalisa Dettori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Core Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Clinical Value ◽  
Reliable Technique ◽  
Ct Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Core ◽  
Histopathologic Diagnosis ◽  
Ct Guided Biopsy

Diagnosis of thoracic lesions on the basis of history and physical examination is often challenging. Diagnostic imaging is therefore of paramount importance in this field. Radiology has traditionally been considered the diagnostic procedure of choice for these diseases. Nevertheless, it is often not possible to differentiate inflammatory/infectious lesions from neoplastic diseases. A correct cytological and histopathologic diagnosis is therefore needed for an accurate diagnosis and subsequent prognostic and therapeutic approach. In human medicine, Computed Tomography (CT) and CT-guided biopsy are used in the presence of lesions which are not adequately diagnosed with other procedures. In the present study, thoracic lesions from 52 dogs and 10 cats of different sex, breed and size underwent both CT-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNAB) and tissue-core biopsy (TCB). Clinical examination, hematobiochemical analysis and chest radiography were performed on all animals. In this study, 59 of 62 histopathological samples were diagnostic (95.2%). Cytology was diagnostic in 43 of 62 samples (69.4%). General sensitivity, accuracy and PPV for FNAB and TCB were 67.7%, 67.7% and 100% and 96.7%, 95.2% and 98.3%, respectively. Combining the two techniques, the overall mean accuracy for diagnosis was 98.4%. Nineteen of 62 cases showed complications (30.6%). Mild pneumothorax was seen in 16 cases, whereas mild hemorrhage occurred in three cases. No major complications were encountered. CT-guided FNAB cytology can be considered a useful and reliable technique, especially for small lesions or lesions located close to vital organs and therefore dangerous to biopsy in other way.

scholarly journals Deep sedation versus minimal sedation during endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio C. Conte ◽  
Giulia Spagnol ◽  
Marco Confalonieri ◽  
Beatrice Brizi
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Deep Sedation ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Endobronchial Ultrasound ◽  
Multicenter Studies ◽  
Transbronchial Needle Aspiration ◽  
Patient Tolerance ◽  
Procedural Time ◽  
Comparable Accuracy

The sedation plays an important role in the endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) procedure. The sedation can be Minimal (anxiolysis), Moderate (conscious sedation) or Deep. The ACCP guidelines suggest that moderate or deep sedation (DS) is an acceptable approach. In fact, several studies compare moderate versus deep sedation, but no study has been carried out to compare deep sedation versus minimal. We carried out a retrospective study to compare the Deep versus Minimal sedation (MiS) in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.  The primary end point was the diagnostic accuracy. The secondary end points were adequacy and sensitivity. We evaluated the LN size sampling, procedural time, complications and patient tolerance. Thirty-six patients underwent EBUS-TBNA, 16 under DS and 20 under MiS. The overall diagnostic accuracy for correct diagnosis was 92.9% in DS group and 94.1% in MiS group (p=0.554). Sample adequacy, defined as the percentage of patients with a specific diagnosis by EBUS-TBNA, was 87.5% (14 of 16) and 85% (17 of 20) for the DS group and MiS group, respectively, (p=0.788); the sensitivity was 92.9% in the DS group (95% CI, 73-100%) and 92.9% in the MiS group (95% CI, 77-100%) (p=0.463). There were no major complications in either group. Minor complications were 4 in MiS and 1 in DS (p=0.355).  The patients in the MiS group recalled the procedure more often compared to the other group (p=0.041). The majority of the patients would agree to undergo the same procedure again in the future in both groups (p=0.766).  In our experience EBUS-TBNA performed under MiS has comparable accuracy, adequacy, sensitivity, complications and patient satisfaction to DS, even if the sample was small.  Future prospective multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document