ProCore Needle Research Articles

Performance evaluation of endoscopic ultrasonography needles: Experimental study.

Background and study aims The relative procedural performance of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is unclear. The present study therefore compared six types of 22-gauge FNA/B needles using a bench simulator. Methods Resistance forces during needle puncture and removal, needle tip damage before and after procedure, leakage after puncture of mucinous cyst models, the shape of the puncture surface at the puncture site, amounts of samples extracted, ranges of needle deflection angles, and needle deformation after multiple procedures were compared using six types of needles. Results Maximum resistance forces during puncture and removal were highest for ProCore needles and lowest for Expect needles. None of the needles had damage after puncturing. SharkCore needles showed the highest amount of leakage, whereas FNA needles showed no leakage. The puncture tracts of FNA needles remained in the form of a flap at the puncture site, whereas FNB needles broke off the target material creating a hole. The target material removed was supplemented within the puncture needle. TopGain needles produced significantly larger samples than ProCore, EZShot3 Plus, and Expect needles. FNB needles produced larger and more core samples than FNA needles. EZShot3 Plus needles had the highest range of needle deflection angle using an elevator device and the lowest needle deformation after 20 punctures at full endoscopic angle and a full elevator. Conclusions The performance of the six needles differed in various ways. Understanding the characteristics of each needle may allow for selection of the appropriate needle for each situation.

The additive diagnostic value of cytology in fine needle biopsy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A tertiary center experience.

Endoscopic ultrasound guide fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is the main diagnostic tool for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In most instances, only histology is obtained via FNB, without sending cytological slides. The aim of our study was to assess the additive diagnostic yield of cytology performed through FNB. We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with histological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were diagnosed by EUS-FNB. Overall, 80 patients were included in the study period. The overall concordance between cytology and histology all FNB needles was 78.2%. Notably, cytological assessment improved the diagnostic yield for malignancy by 12.8%. The overall kappa coefficient correlation between histology and cytology was .501, 95% CI 0.361-0.641. However, the kappa correlation for suspicious of malignancy and malignant was excellent of .872, 95% CI 0.733-1, suggesting that cytology is crucial when histology is inconclusive. Further analysis showed that the Acquire and Sharkcore needles outperformed the Procore needle in term of concordance between cytology and histology (kappa correlation of .527, 95% CI 0.331-0.724, .515, 95% CI 0.265-0.764, and .297, 95% CI -0.051-0.646), respectively. Performing cytology specimen when using FNB improves the diagnostic yield in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Comparison of 19G FNA Versus 22G FNB Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Sampling of Subepithelial Tumors: Is Bigger Better?

To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling for subepithelial tumors (SETs). The data of patients with SETs who underwent 19G FNA or 22G FNB were reviewed retrospectively in two tertiary hospitals. Tissue cores were assessed by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). Cytological or histological diagnosis were classified as definite, suspect, or no diagnosis. Seventy five patients (mean age: 55 years, 44 males) underwent 19G EUS-FNA (31) or 22G EUS-FNB (44). The overall diagnostic yield was 82.7%. The rate of definite cytological diagnoses was 9.7% (3/31) in 19G and 13.6% (6/44) in 22G group (x2 = 1.520, P = .468). In terms of MOSE, 19G needle, requiring only two punctures, achieved a higher good tissue core rate than 22G group (100.0% [31/31] versus 84.1% [37/44], x2 = 5.440, P = .020]). For histological diagnosis, the 19G group achieved higher definite rate than the 22G group, 93.6% (29/31) versus 65.9% (29/44) (x2 = 7.957, P = .019) on the first puncture, 90.3% (28/31) versus 63.6% (28/44) (x2 = 7.139, P = .028) on the second puncture, 96.8% (30/31) versus 70.5% (31/44) (x2 = 7.319, P = .026) on both the first and second punctures, and 96.8% (30/31) versus 72.7% (32/44) (x2 = 7.538, P = .023) on all three punctures. The 19G EUS-FNA requires only two punctures to achieve better tissue core quality by MOSE and yields a higher rate of histological diagnosis than 22G ProCore needle for SETs. The bigger 19G FNA needle seems to play an important role in the evaluation of SETs.

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey.

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea. The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA. A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%. According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions. This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated. A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%. SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.

EBUS versus EUS-B for diagnosing sarcoidosis: The International Sarcoidosis Assessment (ISA) randomized clinical trial.

Background and objectiveEndosonography with intrathoracic nodal sampling is proposed as the single test with the highest granuloma detection rate in suspected sarcoidosis stage I/II. However, most studies have been performed in limited geographical regions. Studies suggest that oesophageal endosonographic nodal sampling has higher diagnostic yield than endobronchial endosonographic nodal sampling, but a head‐to‐head comparison of both routes has never been performed.MethodsGlobal (14 hospitals, nine countries, four continents) randomized clinical trial was conducted in consecutive patients with suspected sarcoidosis stage I/II presenting between May 2015 and August 2017. Using an endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) scope, patients were randomized to EBUS or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐B‐guided nodal sampling, and to 22‐ or 25‐G ProCore needle aspiration (2 × 2 factorial design). Granuloma detection rate was the primary study endpoint. Final diagnosis was based on cytology/pathology outcomes and clinical/radiological follow‐up at 6 months.ResultsA total of 358 patients were randomized: 185 patients to EBUS‐transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) and 173 to EUS‐B‐fine‐needle aspiration (FNA). Final diagnosis was sarcoidosis in 306 patients (86%). Granuloma detection rate was 70% (130/185; 95% CI, 63–76) for EBUS‐TBNA and 68% (118/173; 95% CI, 61–75) for EUS‐B‐FNA (p = 0.67). Sensitivity for diagnosing sarcoidosis was 78% (129/165; 95% CI, 71–84) for EBUS‐TBNA and 82% (115/141; 95% CI, 74–87) for EUS‐B‐FNA (p = 0.46). There was no significant difference between the two needle types in granuloma detection rate or sensitivity.ConclusionGranuloma detection rate of mediastinal/hilar nodes by endosonography in patients with suspected sarcoidosis stage I/II is high and similar for EBUS and EUS‐B. These findings imply that both diagnostic tests can be safely and universally used in suspected sarcoidosis patients.

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.

Diagnostic yield and safety of the ProCore versus the standard EBUS-TBNA needle in subjects with suspected sarcoidosis

ABSTRACT Background: No randomized trial has compared the yield of the ProCore needle, a novel needle for endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), with standard needles. Research design and methods: Consecutive subjects with intrathoracic lymphadenopathy due to suspected sarcoidosis were randomized 1:1 to undergo EBUS-TBNA with either the 22-gauge ProCore (EchoTip-ProCore, Cook-Medical) or the 22-gauge standard (Vizishot, Olympus) needle. The primary outcome was the diagnostic sensitivity; the secondary outcomes included the number of adequate aspirates obtained and procedure-related complications. Results: We randomized 100 (mean age, 43.4 years; 53% women) subjects. Of the 84 subjects finally diagnosed with sarcoidosis, the sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was higher with the ProCore (36/42, 85.7%) versus the standard needle (31/42, 73.8%), although not statistically significant (p = 0.18). We obtained adequate aspirates in 95.2% and 90.5% subjects in the ProCore and the standard needle groups, respectively (p = 0.68). One complication (transient hypoxemia) occurred in each group. There were two incidences of the ProCore needle getting bent during the procedure. Conclusions: We found no difference in the sensitivity, specimen adequacy, or safety of EBUS-TBNA when performed with the ProCore or the Olympus needle in subjects with sarcoidosis. Larger studies are required to confirm our findings.[clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03656003]

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P).Materials and Methods: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type.Results: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (−4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%.Conclusion: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Optimal number of needle passes during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with 22G ProCore needles and different suction techniques: A randomized controlled trial.

Background and Objectives: The sensitivity of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) varies considerably. The optimal number of passes through a solid pancreatic lesion with a 22G FNB needle during EUS-FNB is controversial. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes during EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions, with 22G FNB needles and different sampling techniques.Methods: Pancreatic masses were sampled using 22G FNB needles with either the stylet slow-pull (SP) technique or the standard-suction (SS) technique. We determined the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic accuracy of >90%. Differences between the two techniques in terms of technical success rate, cytological acquisition, core tissue acquisition, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications were analyzed.Results: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to either SP or SS group. Three patients who were lost to follow-up and one who did not complete 5 passes due to bent needle head were excluded from the study. Fifty-six cases in the SP group and 60 cases in the SS group were included in the analysis. For SP technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 44.83%, 76.79%, 87.50%, 92.86%, and 94.64%, respectively. For SS technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 71.67%, 85.0%, 90.0%, 93.33%, and 95.0%, respectively. For each group, there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy after 3 and 4 passes. After 4 passes, the pooled sensitivity (92.59% vs. 93.10%), accuracy (92.86% vs. 93.10%), and specificity (100% vs. 100%) were similar (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. In addition, positive cytological diagnoses (83.9% vs. 85.0%) and positive histological diagnoses (71.4% vs. 78.3%) were comparable (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. No statistically significant factor was found associated with diagnostic sensitivity for each group.Conclusion: When on-site cytological evaluation is unavailable, we recommend that at least 3 passes with 22G ProCore needles be performed during EUS-FNB using the SS technique, at least 4 passes when using SP technique. The SS technique showed potential advantages over SP technique in tissue acquisition and diagnostic capabilities.

Gastrointestinal: Franseen-tip transmural fine-needle biopsy for localized gastric linitis plastica.

A 59-year-old male patient presented with refractory nausea and vomiting. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a concentric, malignant-appearing stricture in the distal antrum (Fig. 1a). Of note, despite the clinical picture of functional outlet obstruction, endoscopic passage into the duodenum was maintained. However, two extensive rounds of conventional mucosal biopsies (each > 12) did not yield a malignant histology. While a thoracoabdominal computed tomography scan excluded distant metastases, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) revealed marked, diffusely hypoechogenic wall thickening up to 30 mm with irregular margins and fusion of layers, highly suggestive of gastric linitis plastica (GLP) (Fig. 1b, linear probe: Pentax, EG38J10UT). Final locoregional staging was determined uT3N0, and transmural EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) using a novel FNB-dedicated 22G Franseen-tip needle was performed (Acquire, Boston Scientific) (Fig. 1c). Relative to more established EUS-FNB needle, such as the Procore needle, the specific design of the needle with its stabilizing three-point tip allows for improved tissue capture and reduced fragmentation. EUS-FNB was performed in the slow pull technique with extensive fanning through the lesion, resulting in a macroscopically excellent yield (Fig. 1d). Pathology assessment indicated atypical epithelial cells with a prominent desmoplastic stroma within the muscularis propria (Fig. 1e, top). There was faint granular positivity in the periodic acid-Schiff staining, albeit a clear-cut signet ring morphology was absent. Ancillary immunohistochemistries were positive for CK-20 (Fig. 1e, lower left), CDX-2 (Fig. 1e, lower right), and (not shown) carcinoembryonic antigen, while p53 remained negative. In conjunction with clinical characteristics, a final diagnosis of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma underlying linitis plastica was entertained. After an unremarkable ileocolonoscopy, the patient underwent diagnostic laparoscopy, excluding peritoneal carcinomatosis and providing an enteral nutrition access, and perioperative chemotherapy using FLOT4 (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) was recommended prior to surgical gastrectomy. EUS-based tissue acquisition of either the gastric wall and/or suspicious lymph nodes is instrumental in confirming the malignant nature of gastric wall thickening, albeit the distinct benefit of newer FNB-dedicated needles, such as with a Franseen-tip design, considered to translate into improved maintenance of tissue architecture, is yet to be better determined in systematic, GLP-exclusive analyses.

S0942 Efficacy of 20G Procore Needle in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

S0942 Efficacy of 20G Procore Needle in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author commentary on David Karsenti et al.

David Karsenti et al. 22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy

Methodological and Technical Aspects of EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of the Upper Digestive Tract Lesions

Aim . Analysis of the results of our own experience of EUS-guided fi ne-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of digestive tract lesions, depending on the technical and methodological aspects. Materials and methods . From 2007 to July 2019, the EUS-FNA was performed in 86 patients. Aspirating and ProCore needles of various calibers were used. Punctures were performed once (54), two- (20), three- (8) and four times (4) both with and without aspiration. Results and discussion . Material suitable for histological examination was obtained in 86% of patients: with a single puncture — in 83.3% of cases, double — in 91.3%, triple — in 100%, four times — not obtained. Using 19G needles, the material was obtained in 80.5%, 22G in 93%, 25G in 100% of cases. Punctures were successful in 90.5% of patients with pancreatic lesions, in 75% of patients with subepithelial lesions, in 80% of cases with abdominal and retroperitoneal lesions, in all patients with lymphadenopathy, mediastinal and liver lesions. With aspiration, punctures were successful in 85.5% of cases, without aspiration in 100% (3/3). With the combined method (with and without aspiration), the material obtained in diff erent modes in 11 patients was equally sufficient for histological examination. It was also noted that one of the Fujifi lm echoendoscopes used for performing the EUS-FNA has an inconvenient design of the biopsy channel distal part. A surgery was performed on 50 out of 86 patients; in 42 (84%) of them, the EUS-FNA material was suitable for performing a morphological examination. The histological examination results conformity of the material obtained by fi ne-needle aspiration and surgical material was 88.1% (37/42). Conclusion . It is necessary to consider many factors to obtain the most eff ective results in the EUS-FNA, since none of them is prevailing.

Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

BackgroundHow suction technique affects endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) remains unclear. A standardized protocol is currently lacking, with most previous studies being restricted to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The research related to EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is sparse. AimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cellularity, tissue acquisition, blood contamination and adverse event rate of three common suction techniques (standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction) used for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses. MethodsThis is a multicenter single-blind randomized cross-over superiority trial. A total of 300 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy will be enrolled from digestive endoscopic centers at five large tertiary hospitals in China. All three suction techniques will be performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle, with the sequence of suction techniques determined by randomization. Cytological and histological specimens obtained with each of the three techniques will be assessed independently. Outcomes among the three suction techniques will be compared. DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter randomized cross-over trial designed to determine the optimal suction technique for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This study may contribute to standardizing the suction technique for EUS-FNB.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy of the liver with the new 20G procore needle in a patient with abnormal liver function tests and without solid liver lesion

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy of the liver with the new 20G procore needle in a patient with abnormal liver function tests and without solid liver lesion

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 22 G versus 20 G procore needles in solid lesions: a pilot study

EnBackground and aimEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows tissue acquisition from solid lesions. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to improve diagnostic yield by acquisition of histological core. The impact of the needle type (FNA or FNB) on the diagnostic yield and the technical success needs to be further studied. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and technical success of the 22-G FNA needle with the 20-G procore FNB needle in solid lesions.Patients and methodsThe study was designed as a pilot study conducted on cases with solid mediastinal, pancreatic, and intra-abdominal lesions, and the patients involved were then randomized for tissue sampling using either the standard 22-G FNA needle or the new 20-G procore FNB needle.ResultsIn this six-month study, 50 patients including 29 male individuals and 21 female individuals, with a mean age of 57.1±12.3 years (range: 15–80 years) were enrolled. No significant difference was detected between FNA 22 G and FNB 20 G as regards the diagnostic accuracy or the technical success rates. However, there was a significant difference in the number of passes needed to reach diagnosis. The success rate of first pass for FNA 22 G and FNB 20 G was 69 and 92.5%, respectively (P=0.014, 95%CI).ConclusionEUS-guided FNA and FNB have comparable diagnostic accuracy for solid lesions. The 20-G FNB needles are easy to handle in anatomically challenging locations and required fewer needle passes to reach diagnosis.

The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.

Background and Objectives:EUS-guided tissue acquisition with rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) has been used to increase the diagnostic yield. However, ROSE is not available in many centers. To date, only a few studies have assessed the adequacy of histologic cores in macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Blood contamination of histologic core specimens lowers the sample quality and the diagnostic yield. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of MOSE using filter paper to increase the adequacy of histologic core specimens while minimizing blood contamination.Materials and Methods:Seventy-nine consecutive patients with an intraabdominal mass underwent EUS-FNB between March 2017 and October 2018. Histologic specimens obtained using EUS-FNB were expelled onto filter paper, and the histologic procurement rate on MOSE was evaluated.Results:EUS-FNB using a 20-gauge Procore needle or a 22-gauge Acquire needle was successful in all patients. The mean number of needle passes was 2.8 ss0.8. Visible histologic cores were observed in 94.9% (75/79) of the patients. Blood-contaminated specimens with scanty histologic cores were obtained in 5.1% (4/79) of the patients. On microscopic examination, 92.4% (73/79) of the histologic samples were graded as optimal. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 94.5%, 94.3%, and 100%, respectively. Mild postprocedural adverse events occurred in 2 patients (2.5%: n = 1, transient fever; n = 1, acute pancreatitis).Conclusions:MOSE using filter paper provided adequate histologic samples while minimizing blood contamination. MOSE can also increase the diagnostic accuracy when ROSE is not available.

High diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of the new 20G procore needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Results of a large multicentre retrospective study.

Background and Objective:EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy has become the standard for tissue sampling. A new 20G ProCore™ (PC) needle has been developed to overcome the limitations of tissue acquisition of the smaller needles (22G, 25G) and the rigidity of the larger one (19G). The aim of this study is to assess the performance of the 20G PC needle.Materials and Methods:Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition with the 20G PC needle of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three Italian centers (Bologna, Fermo, and Palermo). Diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were the outcome measures. All the cases were performed without rapid on-site evaluation.Results:A total of 384 patients with pancreatic (62.2%) and extra-pancreatic lesions were included in the study. For pancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 92.4%, 91.5%, 90.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 11.8. The tissue core was obtained in 72% of cases. Transduodenal approach was performed in 150 pancreatic lesions; adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were 88.7%, 90%, and 66%, respectively (NNM 10). For extrapancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and tissue core sampling were 95.3%, 95.3%, 92.6%, 100%, and 84.5% (NNM 21.3).Conclusions:The 20G PC needle showed high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy, regardless the access route.

Efficacy of 3 fine-needle biopsy techniques for suspected pancreatic malignancies in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) has a high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic tumors. Most reports have focused on the diagnostic yield of cytology or histology; the ability of various FNA/B techniques to obtain an adequate mass of cells or tissue has rarely been investigated. Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy underwent EUS-FNB using a 22-gauge ProCore needle by either the stylet slow-pull-back technique (group A), conventional negative suction after stylet removal (group B), or non-suction after stylet removal (group C) in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist. The adequacy of the 3 techniques based on the diagnostic yield, cellularity, blood contamination, and core-tissue acquisition was evaluated. A total of 50 patients (27 males) were analyzed. The mean tumor size was 21 to 40mm in 54%. The rate of a good or excellent proportion of cellularity was highest in group A compared with groups B and C (72% vs 60% vs 50%, P= .049). A >25% rate of blood contamination was more prevalent in group B (30% vs 42% vs 10%, P= .009). The rate of adequate core-tissue acquisition was not different (52% vs 34% vs 50%, P= .140). Based on the multivariate generalized estimation equation, the stylet slow-pull-back technique and a tumor size >40mm were favorable factors for diagnostic adequacy. The stylet slow-pull-back technique might enable acquisition of tissue and assessment of cellularity for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors suspected to be malignant. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002190.).