scholarly journals Comparison of Histological Sample Volumes among Various Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Needles

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 3560
Author(s):  
Kosuke Takahashi ◽  
Ichiro Yasuda ◽  
Tatsuyuki Hanaoka ◽  
Yuka Hayashi ◽  
Iori Motoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Blood Clot ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Glass Slides ◽  
Significant Difference

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) enables easy and accurate pathological assessment. Here, we compared and assessed the area of samples on glass slides for three needle types: a 19-gauge Franseen needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), a 22-gauge Franseen needle, and a 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle (EZ Shot 3 Plus; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Among patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, with a ≥20 mm tumor located in the pancreatic body and tail, and who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB between June 2018 and March 2020, 10 were randomly selected to test each needle. The areas of histological tissue and blood clot samples were measured using the BZ-X800 imaging software (Keyence Corporation, Osaka, Japan). Baseline patient characteristics and pathological sample data showed no significant differences among the needles. The 19-gauge Franseen needle obtained significantly more histological tissue samples than the 19-gauge conventional needle (p = 0.010) and 22-gauge Franseen needle (p = 0.008). Conversely, there was no significant difference between the 19-gauge conventional needle and 22-gauge Franseen needle (p = 0.838) in this regard. The 19-gauge Franseen needle could collect more samples than the other needles, contributing to giving a more precise pathological diagnosis and more information, including genomic profiling.

scholarly journals Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1883
Author(s):  
Mika Takasumi ◽  
Takuto Hikichi ◽  
Minami Hashimoto ◽  
Jun Nakamura ◽  
Tsunetaka Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) have been reported to be imperfect. To resolve these issues, a fork-tip needle as an EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of a fork-tip needle in an EUS-FNB for gastric SELs. Seventy-nine patients who received an EUS-FNA or FNB using a fork-tip needle for gastric SELs were included in the study. The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the EUS-FNB with the fork-tip needle group (fork-tip group, n = 13) and the EUS-FNA with FNA needle group (FNA group, n = 66). In addition, a multivariate analysis of the factors influencing diagnostic accuracy was conducted. Regarding sample adequacy, there was no significant difference between the groups (100% vs. 90.9%, respectively; p = 0.582). The diagnostic accuracy of the fork-tip group was numerically higher than that of the FNA group (92.3% vs. 81.8%, respectively; p = 0.682). In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic accuracy was related to the tumor size and location of the SEL but not to the needle type. In conclusion, this study does not show statistical superiority, but suggests the useful potential of a fork-tip needle.

scholarly journals Utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing small subepithelial lesions (< 20 mm)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masanari Sekine ◽  
Takaya Miura ◽  
Junichi Fujiwara ◽  
Takeshi Uehara ◽  
Takeharu Asano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

Abstract Aim Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are defined as being located under the mucosa. Presently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly performed to diagnose SELs. With the development of new puncture needles, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), which allows for the acquisition of large tissue samples, has been proposed. However, studies on EUS-FNB of SELs measuring < 20 mm have not yielded satisfactory results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and usefulness of EUS-FNB of SELs measuring less than < 20 mm. Methods The present study included 62 patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for SELs at our hospital between January 2015 and March 2019. EUS-FNA was performed using fine-needle aspiration needles, and EUS-FNB was performed using fine-needle biopsy needles. These needles, which come in different shapes and diameters, were compared in terms of their usefulness in performing procedures for SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm and those measuring < 20 mm. Results For SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm, the use of needles with a large diameter, such as 19 or 20 G, resulted in significantly improved diagnostic rates. For SELs measuring < 20 mm, the use of FNB needles showed significantly improved diagnostic rates, regardless of the size of the puncture needles. Conclusion Even when SELs are less than 20 mm, they might have malignant potential, and histological diagnosis may be desirable in some cases. EUS-FNB has an advantage over EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs measuring < 20 mm.

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.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan R. Ayres ◽  
Elizabeth K. Kmiotek ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Jennifer J. Telford
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Background and Aims. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods. A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. Results. 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p>0.05). Conclusion. FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document