Histological Core Research Articles

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle for pancreatic tumors and peridigestive tract lesions: Retrospective single-center study.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is vital for diagnosing pancreatic and peridigestive tract lesions. A new three-prong asymmetry tip needle has been developed for this procedure. In this study, we retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability, tissue collection volume, and procedural adverse events of the three-prong asymmetry tip needle for solid pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions. We analyzed the data of 58 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle between August 2022 and April 2023 at a single care center. The tissue collection rate was 91.4% with 89.7% accuracy, 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 25% negative predictive value. No significant differences in collection rates or diagnostic performance were observed based on the target organ, puncture route, or lesion size. Using our original assessment method, the average histological core tissue score was 3.1 ± 0.8, whereas the blood contamination volume was 2.5 ± 0.8. Only one of 58 patients (1.7%) developed a pancreatic fistula of moderate severity as an adverse event. The three-prong asymmetry tip needle demonstrated good diagnostic capability and adequate sample volume with safety for pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided End-cutting Fine-needle Biopsy needles for tissue sampling of Abdominal and Mediastinal Lymphadenopathies: a prospective multicenter series.

The role of the newer EUS-fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles in lymphadenopathies (LA) is still under evaluation. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the adverse event rate of EUS-FNB in diagnosing LA. From June 2015 to 2022, all patients referred to 4 institutions for EUS-FNB of mediastinal and abdominal LA were enrolled. 22G Franseen tip or 25G Fork tip needles were used. The gold standard for positive results was surgery or imaging and clinical evolution over a follow-up of at least one year. A total of 100 consecutive patients were enrolled, consisting of those with a new diagnosis of LA (40%), presence of LA with a previous history of neoplasia (51%), or suspected lymphoproliferative disease (9%). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all LA patients with 2 to 3 passes (mean 2.62±0.93). The overall EUS-FNB sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 96.20%, 100%, 100%, 87.50%, and 97.00%, respectively. Histological analysis was feasible in 89% of cases. Cytological evaluation was performed in 67% of specimens. There was no statistical difference between the accuracy of the 22G or 25G needle (p=0.63). A sub-analysis on lymphoproliferative disease revealed a sensitivity and accuracy of 89.29% and 90.0%. No complications were recorded. EUS-FNB with new end-cutting needles is a valuable and safe method to diagnose LA. The high quality of histological cores and the good amount of tissue allowed a complete immunohistochemical analysis of metastatic LA and precise subtyping of the lymphomas.

Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study

It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40–8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00–2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique.

The role of EUS elastography-guided fine needle biopsy in the histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective exploratory study

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of Endoscopic ultrasound elastography-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-EG-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. EUS-EG images were classified into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. For the heterogeneous group, EUS-FNB was separately performed in both hard areas and soft areas. Only samples obtained during the first two passes (hard/soft areas) were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy as well as the quality and quantity of the specimens. We investigated the association of EUS-EG findings using strain histogram analysis with the histological findings. Fifty-five patients were enrolled including 25 patients with heterogeneous group. The homogeneous group had significantly lower mean strain value (hard) lesions. The adequate sampling rates from hard and soft areas were 88 and 92%, respectively (P = 0.6374). Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and the quality and quantity of the histological core between hard and soft areas showed no significant differences. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases, the proportion of fibrous stroma in the core tissue was significantly correlated with the elasticity of the region. (R2 = 0.1226: P = 0.0022) EUS-EG may reflect tissue composition in pancreatic tumors, however, EUS-EG did not affect either the quality and quantity of the tissues obtained.Clinical Trial Registry No: UMIN-000033073.

A Comparative Study of the Diagnostic Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (EUS-FNA) versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB) in Pancreatic and Non-Pancreatic Lesions.

Objectives:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the procedure of choice to obtain samples from pancreatic lesions. However, it still has limitations affecting its diagnostic yield. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to allow acquisition of histological core. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic yield of the Echotip 22Gauge FNA needle with the 22Gauge acquire FNB needle in pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions. Materials and Methods:This prospective study was carried out on 100 cases of pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions referred to El-Ebrashi unit of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, internal medicine department, Kasr Al-Aini hospital. The patients included were then randomized for sampling using either the standard Echotip 22Gauge FNA needle or 22Gauge acquire FNB needle. Results:Patients were 57 males and 43 females with a mean age of 58±15 years. Seventy-eight patients had pancreatic lesions, while twenty-two patients had non-pancreatic lesions. Half of the patients (50 cases) underwent EUS-FNA, and the other half (50 cases) underwent EUS-FNB. The presence of adequate tissue core was significantly higher in the FNB group. In contrast, smear cellularity was not significantly different between both groups. FNB had more sensitivity and accuracy depending on cell block/tissue core examination only for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. Blood contamination was higher in cell blocks of the FNA group. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the combined cytologic and histologic evaluation were 100%. Based on smear only or tissue only, the specificity was 100%, but the sensitivity and accuracy were decreased in both techniques. No complications were reported in both techniques. Conclusion:EUS-guided FNA and FNB are safe with comparable diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions. FNB improved the histopathological quality of specimens with little blood contamination. Depending on tissue examination only in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, FNB had more sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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. 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). 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 < 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). EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

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

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.

Diagnostic Concordance of Cytology and Histology in Samples Obtained via Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB).

IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB) to obtain cytological aspirates and histological core samples, respectively, are the standard of care for diagnosing lesions in/adjacent to the upper/lower gastrointestinal tract. Due to the lack of standardization of tissue processing, it is unclear whether core samples should be sent only for histology (formalin) or cytology (CytoLyt), or both. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic concordance rates between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples.MethodsA total of 227 patients underwent EUS-FNB between October-2017 and February-2019 by a single therapeutic endoscopist; 44 core-tissue samples (41 patients) were placed alternately in CytoLyt (cytology) and formalin (histology), with equal passes into each, to best achieve a proportionate sample amount. The patient's demographics, medical history, pertinent imaging, EUS indication/findings were reviewed. Main outcomes included concordance rates between cytology-histology and diagnostic accuracy for malignancy.ResultsCytology and histology were discordant in five cases (11.5%); four with negative cytology but a definite diagnosis of malignancy achieved with histology. One case was suspected as neoplasm on cytology but further characterized as benign on histology. Cytology failed to sub-characterize an additional four mass-like pancreatic benign entities, due to inadequate tissue architecture assessment in the CytoLyt sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of cytology for diagnosis of malignancy were 87.88% (95%CI: 71.8-96.6), 90.91% (95%CI: 58.7-99.7), 96.67% (95%CI: 81.6-99.4), and 71.43% (95%CI: 49.4-86.4).DiscussionWe observed 11.5% diagnostic discordance between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples, with histology being superior. Future multicenter prospective randomized studies are needed to establish an accurate and cost-effective diagnostic process.

A comparative study of different machine learning techniques for brain tumor analysis

Brain Tumor analysis have been one of the most primal concerns because the complexity of analysing and diagnosing it from the MR images. Gliomas, is considered as the most popular malignancy in brain, with various grades of aggressiveness, different harbinger and different heterogeneous tissues sub-regions, such as, invaded tissue, necrotic histologic and non-enhanced core. Since that isolation, detection and classification of the brain tumor is too complicated and time consuming for the radiologists and clinical supervision, computer aided techniques were involved to support the accurate decisions and diagnosis. In this study, the Machine Learning techniques that are available in the research data were discussed and listed in order to improve the performance and overcoming the limitations of medical images analytics. Our main goal of this review is to grasp the outperformed techniques that can provide better brain tumor dissect. Brain tumor characterization go through multiple steps before reaching the satisfied results for classifying and diagnosis which will lead to the planning of treatment like radiotherapy.Twenty-one state-of-the-art tumor segmentation and classification algorithms were used for brain MRIs of both low grade and high grade, and seventeen techniques were compared according to the achieved accuracies. We found from this quantitative comparison that some of the algorithms have performed best when using other algorithms besides, for example, selection features algorithm such as: PCA, Multi Fractal Detection (MFD), Cumulative Variance Method (CVM), etc.

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.

Efficacy of the Franseen needle for diagnosing gastrointestinal submucosal lesions including small tumors.

Background and Objectives:Several studies have demonstrated that EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is useful for diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (GI SELs). However, there is limited evidence regarding the use of Franseen needles during EUS-FNB for patients with GI SELs. In addition, the optimal approach for diagnosing small SELs is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle was effective for diagnosing GI SELs, including small lesions.Methods:Between January 2013 and January 2020, 150 consecutive patients with GI SELs underwent EUS-FNA/FNB to achieve a histological diagnosis. Eighty-six consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle were compared to 64 patients who underwent EUS-FNA using a conventional needle.Results:The diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (85% vs. 75%, P = 0.006). Furthermore, in cases with SELs that were <20 mm, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (81% vs. 45%; P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that obtaining a sufficient diagnostic sample was independently predicted by Franseen needle use (adjusted odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.2–6.3; P = 0.01) and tumor size of >20 mm (adjusted odds ratio: 3.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4–8.2; P = 0.006).Conclusion:Even when attempting to diagnose small GI SELs, EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle appears to provide a more efficient acquisition of true histological core tissue than using a conventional needle.

Volumetric Changes Following Lateral Guided Bone Regeneration.

Resorbable membranes are well described and employed for horizontal guided bone regeneration (GBR). However, the currently available literature does not provide information on the bone volumetric changes during the healing that follows GBR procedures and dental implant placement. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to initially analyze the volumetric bone changes after treating pristine edentulous mandibular defects with lateral GBR using freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and collagen resorbable membrane. Six patients were selected for the analysis. Clinical changes in bone volume before and after GBR were measured. In addition, digital volumetric analysis of the augmented ridges was performed preoperatively, as well as 4 and 6 months after the GBR procedure. At the time of dental implant placement, bone cores were collected during the osteotomy for histologic analysis. Data on volume changes showed a mean of 297.5 ± 134 mm3 augmented bone volume at 4 months with 5% ± 3.78% resorption from 4 to ≥ 6 months. Histologic bone core analysis showed 44.9% plusmn; 5.1% mineralization in the area of augmentation. Within the limitations of this pilot study, resorbable membranes exhibited reliability for GBR in intercalated mandibular defects, providing sufficient bone volume gain at ≥ 6 months for implant stabilization and limited resorption during graft healing.

The impact of pathological analysis on endobronchial ultrasound diagnostic accuracy.

Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive procedure used for lung cancer diagnosis and staging. Several aspects, including pathological analysis, may impact on its diagnostic accuracy. Differences in diagnostic accuracy between the different specimen processing techniques have not been demonstrated. Cytological slides are generally adequate for diagnosis, subtyping and genotyping. However, some pathological laboratories may require cell blocks or histological core biopsies for a complete molecular profiling. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is a technique for immediate evaluation of samples obtained with EBUS-TBNA. The aims of ROSE are to increase sampling adequacy, improving diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA and ensuring collection of adequate material for ancillary studies. However, the reported data on the impact of ROSE in the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA and in lung cancer diagnosis and staging are controversial. Some series reported a valuable contribution of ROSE to diagnosis and staging of lung cancer and a high concordance between ROSE and the final diagnosis. However, randomized trials failed in finding differences in diagnostic yield between EBUS-TBNA performed with and without ROSE. The yield of EBUS-TBNA for molecular analyses varies between 72% and 98%, and ROSE may warrant the collection of adequate material for molecular profiling. In lung cancer diagnosis and staging a recommended number of three to four passes during EBUS-TBNA at each target is a minimum requirement to obtain enough material for molecular analysis. The use of ROSE may reduce the number of passes for molecular profiling and the number of additional invasive diagnostic procedures. EBUS-TBNA is a procedure with a high accuracy rate and ROSE may contribute to a further improvement of the results. The possibility to avoid additional invasive procedure is an important advantage leading to an overall improvement of patient care.

Sa1462 FEASIBILITY, SAFETY, AND DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND (EUS)-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE CORE BIOPSY FOR NON-FOCAL, BENIGN, PANCREATIC PARENCHYMAL DISEASES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a well-established method for specimen acquisition in suspected pancreatic malignancies. However, the role of EUS-FNA for, non-focal, non-neoplastic, benign pancreatic diseases such as chronic pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis is diminished by the sample inadequacy and architectural distortion. This is evaded by histologic core biopsies obtained through newer generation EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for non-focal, benign, pancreatic parenchymal diseases. This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent EUS-FNB for suspected non-focal, benign, parenchymal pancreatic disease at a single tertiary-care referral center from 10/04/2016 to 10/16/2019. We abstracted and analyzed patient demographics, EUS findings, histopathology, clinical management, and follow-up data. A total of 12 EUS-guided FNB were performed using a 22-gauge needle (83.3% (n=10) with Acquire (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) needle and 2 with SharkCore (Medtronic Corp., Boston, MA) needle) for suspected non-focal, benign, parenchymal pancreatic disease during the study period. Eleven patients (mean age 39.1±20 years; 54% females) were included in this study. Transgastric (87%) or transduodenal (13%) EUS-FNB was successful in all patients (technical success: 100%). The mean number of FNB passes was 1.7 (median 2, range 1-3) (Figure 1). EUS-FNB provided pancreatic tissue cores that were adequate for histopathological diagnosis in all cases. The mean length of the core biopsy specimen obtained was 12±8.1 mm. Histopathologic diagnoses included: chronic pancreatitis in 4 (36.3%) patients, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in 3 (27.3%), and parenchyma with no diagnostic abnormality in the remaining 4 patients (36.3%). Based on the histopathological diagnosis of AIP, 3 patients were treated with steroid therapy with excellent clinical response. No adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, or post-biopsy pancreatitis were observed during median follow-up of 8 months (range, 1-37; mean 15.6±15.5). EUS-guided FNB using the newer generation 22-gauge biopsy needle is a feasible and safe procedure and provides adequate pancreatic tissue specimen (core biopsy) in all cases for histopathological diagnosis of non-focal, benign, pancreatic parenchymal diseases.

Su1297 ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY: DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) to obtain cytological aspirates and histological core samples have been the standard of care for diagnosis of solid or cystic lesions in or nearby upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Due to lack of standardization of tissue processing, it is unclear as to whether core sample should be sent only for histology (in formalin), or for cytology (in cytolyte) or for both. The aim of this study is to investigate the concordance rates observed between cytology compared with histology on samples obtained using EUS-FNA/FNB. Out of 226 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB using a 22-gauge needle between October 2017 and February 2019 by a single therapeutic endoscopist, 46 patients were selected for final evaluation, in whom equal number of passes were sent for both histology and cytology. Patient's demographics, medical history, imaging (prior computed tomography /magnetic resonance imaging), indication for EUS, EUS findings, and cytology/histology results were analyzed. The main outcome measures were diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and concordance between cytology and histology. In 46 patients, the acquired core samples were placed alternately in cytolyte (for cytology) and formalin (for histology), with equal number of passes into each, to best achieve proportionate amount of samples. These samples were obtained from solid masses in 78% (36/46), lymph nodes in 13% (6/46) and from cystic lesions in 8.6% (4/46) of cases. Analysis was remarkable for diagnosis consistency in 42 out of 46 samples (91.3%). Cytology and histology were found to be discordant in four cases. Cytology was reported inconclusive in 1 and negative in 3 of these cases, but definitive diagnosis was achieved with histology, which was positive for neoplasm in all 4 cases. These samples were obtained from two pancreatic masses, one gastric subepithelial lesion, and one lymph node; and histology confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and follicular lymphoma, respectively. Our study observed an 8% diagnostic discordance between cytology and histology on core samples obtained using EUS-FNB, when it was sent for both cytology and histology in equal proportions. Diagnostic yield of histology was noted to be superior to cytology, especially in cases with cytological diagnostic uncertainty. Further large, randomized and prospective studies are needed to ascertain a best and universally acceptable practice to make the diagnostic process more efficient, accurate, and cost-effective.

Modified Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle to Obtain Histological Core Tissue Samples: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background/AimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration is very effective for providing specimens for cytological evaluation. However, the ability to provide sufficient tissue for histological evaluation has been challenging due to the technical limitations of dedicated core biopsy needles. Recently, a modified EUS needle has been introduced to obtain tissue core samples for histological analysis. We aimed to determine (1) its ability to obtain specimens for histological assessment and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using this needle. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of FNB using modified EUS needles for 342 lesions in 303 patients. The cytology and histological specimens were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated. ResultsAdequate cytological and histological assessment was possible in 293/342 (86%) and 264/342 (77%) lesions, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of the cytological specimen was 294/342 (86%) versus 254/342 (74%) for the histological specimen (p<0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the combined cytological and histological assessment was 323/342 (94.4%), which was significantly higher than that of both histology alone (p<0.001) and cytology alone (p=0.001). ConclusionsEUS-FNB with the modified EUS needle provided histologic tissue cores in the majority of cases and achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy with few needle passes.

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques. From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P=0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P=0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively. The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

The Feasibility and Histological Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Menghini Needle (EUS Sonopsy CY™) for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective Crossover Study Comparing Standard Biopsy Needles.

Background and Objectives Recently, a 21G Menghini-type needle for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has been developed. The stylet of the EUS Sonopsy CY™ remains inside the needle during aspiration. Therefore, it is expected to obtain higher-quality histological core specimens without crushing the material or blood contamination. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses with this new biopsy needle. Methods A total of 30 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNAB with two different types of needles, EUS Sonopsy™ and ProCore™, were included in a prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover study. All the pancreatic masses were punctured with the two needles and were randomized regarding the order of the needle to be used. The primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and the rates of tissue acquisition of the two needles. Results The tissue acquisition rate was not significantly different between the EUS Sonopsy CY™ needle and the ProCore™ needle (78.6% vs. 82.1%, P = 1.00). The histological diagnostic accuracy was also similar between the two needles (73% vs. 80%, P = .63). There was also no difference regarding the accuracy of cytology alone and the combination of both histological and cytological assessments between the EUS Sonopsy CY™ needle and the ProCore™ needle (90% vs. 87%, P = 1.00 and 90% vs. 90%, P = 1.00, respectively). Conclusions EUS Sonopsy CY™ is a reliable device for EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses.

Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Although newer needle designs are thought to improve diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, there is limited evidence on their diagnostic performance. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of Franseen and Fork-tip fine-needle biopsy needles. Patients and methods Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through March 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histological core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity and sensitivity. Safety data were also analyzed. Results Twenty-four studies with 6641 patients were included and pancreas was the prevalent location of sampled lesions. Overall sample adequacy with the two newer needles was 94.8 % (93.1 % – 96.4 %), with superiority of Franseen needle over Fork-tip (96.1 % versus 92.4 %, P < 0.001). Sample adequacy in targeting pancreatic masses was 95.6% and both needles produced results superior to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) (odds ratio 4.29, 1.49 – 12.35 and 1.79, 1.01 – 3.19 with Franseen and Fork-tip needle, respectively). The rate of histological core procurement was 92.5%, whereas diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 95 % and 92.8 %, again with no difference between the two needles. Number of needle passes was significantly lower in comparison to FNA (mean difference: –0.42 with Franseen and –1.60 with Fork-tip needle). No significant adverse events were registered. Conclusion Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of use of newer biopsy needles as a safe and effective tool in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

2802 Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Needle Biopsy for Benign Pancreatic Diseases

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a well-established method for specimen acquisition in suspected pancreatic malignancies. However, the role of EUS-FNA for non-focal, non-neoplastic, benign pancreatic diseases such as chronic pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis is diminished by the sample inadequacy and architectural distortion. This is evaded by histologic core biopsies obtained through newer generation EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for benign pancreatic diseases. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent EUS-FNB for suspected benign parenchymal pancreatic diseases from 02/2017 to 11/2018. The primary objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic adequacy, and safety of the newer 22-gauge EUS-FNB in the evaluation of benign pancreatic parenchymal diseases. RESULTS: Seven patients (mean age 36.5 ± 18.5 years; 57% males) were included in this study. The mean number of FNB passes was 1.7 (median 2, range 1-3) (Figure 1A and B). Adequate tissue for histopathogical diagnosis was obtained in all cases. Mean length of core biopsy specimen obtained was 12 ± 8.2 mm. Histopathologic diagnoses included: chronic pancreatitis in 2, autoimmune pancreatitis in 2 patients, and parenchyma with no diagnostic abnormality in remaining 3 patients. Two patients with autoimmune pancreatitis were treated with steroid therapy with excellent clinical response. No adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, or post-biopsy pancreatitis were observed on median follow-up of 8.3 (range, 1-21) months. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB with the newer 22-gauge biopsy needle is a feasible and safe procedure, and provides adequate pancreatic tissue specimen (core biopsy) for histopathological diagnosis of benign pancreatic diseases such as chronic pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis.