Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. METHODS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated. RESULTS: The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA.

Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions with conventional 22-gauge needle using the slow pull technique: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using the slow pull technique (SP-FNA) has recently attracted attention as an effective tissue acquisition technique. However, efficacy of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge conventional needle remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic ability of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge needle. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with a pancreatic solid lesion were prospectively enrolled in this study. SP-FNA was performed at two needle passes with a 22-gauge needle. One dedicated pathologist evaluated the obtained samples in terms of quantity (Grade 0: scant; Grade 1: inadequate; Grade 2: adequate), quality (Grade 0: poor; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: good), and blood contamination (Grade 0: significant; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: low), and provided a pathological diagnosis. Additional EUS-FNA was performed by applying suction (SA-FNA). The evaluation points were as follows: diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA compared with that of SA-FNA, and the quantity, quality, and blood contamination level of SP-FNA-obtained samples. RESULTS: We enrolled 40 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA was 90% (36/40). There was no significant difference in the accuracy between SP-FNA and SA-FNA (90% vs. 90%, p = 1.000). The samples obtained using SP-FNA were assessed as Grade 2 for quantity in 29 cases (73%), quality in 31 (78%), and blood contamination in 25 (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate, high-quality, and unsubstantially blood-contaminated samples could be obtained using SP-FNA. The diagnostic ability of SP-FNA was 90%, which appeared to be similar to that of SA-FNA.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The main objective of the present study is to compare the safety, technical success and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus ultrasound-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that involved all patients with a solid pancreatic lesion who underwent EUS-FNA or US-CNB between November 2019 and February 2021. Of all patients, 69 (84.1%) had inoperable malignancy, whereas 13 (15.9%) had chronic pancreatitis. Resectability status was ascertained by computed tomography. All core needle biopsies were performed by the same interventional radiologist via ultrasound guidance with an 18-gauge semi-automatic tru-cut needle. All EUS-FNA procedures were performed by the same gastroenterologist with a 27-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Technical success is defined as if the region of interest is reached and specimen taken from the pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield is defined as the procurement of sufficient tissue for pathological examination. RESULTS: Overall, 52 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 9.8 years) who underwent EUS-FNA and 30 patients (60.1 ± 12.1 years) who underwent US-CNB were included. Solid lesions were most commonly (61.5% in EUS-FNA and 50.0% in US-CNB groups) located in pancreatic head in both groups. Mean size of the lesions was comparable in both groups as well. The technical success was 100% in both groups. In 12 (14.6%) patients, pathology results revealed inadequate sampling (11 × in the EUS-FNA and 1 × in the US-CNB group). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher in US-CNB group than in EUS-FNA group (96.7% vs. 78.8%, respectively, p = 0.048). Of 11 patients in the EUS-FNA with inadequate sampling, pancreatic lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 7 (63.6%). No major complications were observed in neither of the groups. As a minor complication, one case of slight abdominal pain was detected in the EUS-FNA group. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the present study, both US-CNB and EUS-FNA appeared safe; however, diagnostic yield in the US-CNB group was significantly higher.

Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Hypervascular Pancreatic Lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

Recent Advances in Endosonography-Elastography: Literature Review.

Ultrasonographic elastography is a modality used to visualize the elastic properties of tissues. Technological advances in ultrasound equipment have supported the evaluation of elastography (EG) in endosonography (EUS). Currently, the usefulness of not only EUS-strain elastography (EUS-SE) but also EUS-shear wave elastography (EUS-SWE) has been reported. We reviewed the literature on the usefulness of EUS-EG for various diseases such as chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic solid lesion, autoimmune pancreatitis, lymph node, and gastrointestinal and subepithelial lesions. The importance of this new diagnostic parameter, "tissue elasticity" in clinical practice might be applied not only to the diagnosis of liver fibrosis but also to the elucidation of the pathogeneses of various gastrointestinal diseases, including pancreatic diseases, and to the evaluation of therapeutic effects. The most important feature of EUS-EG is that it is a non-invasive modality. This is an advantage not found in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which has made remarkable progress in the field of diagnostics in recent years. Further development of artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-EG. Future research on EUS-EG is anticipated.

Resectable pancreatic solid lesions: Time to move from surgical diagnosis?

Benign or malignant conditions can present as pancreatic solid lesions (PSLs), and a thorough diagnostic workup is necessary to differentiate them. The need to acquire a tissue sample to reach a definitive diagnosis should be stratified by the findings at multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) with a pancreatic protocol. Tissue biopsy is currently indicated in patients fit for chemotherapy in whom a metastatic tumor or a locally advanced unresectable lesion are discovered. For these patients, EUS-guided tissue acquisition, with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy represents the gold standard to provide a definitive cyto- and/or histopathologic diagnosis, with a high rate of accuracy. For resectable PSLs with a nonhypoenhancing MDCT pattern, which is not disease specific, a tissue diagnosis to distinguish benign from malignant etiologies appears mandatory. On the other hand, for hypo-enhancing PSLs, the debate of whether to obtain a preoperative definitive diagnosis still favors direct surgery. However, availability of novel EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy needles, which can ameliorate the negative predictive value of EUS-FNA and allow performance of DNA and RNA whole-genome extraction and RNA sequencing, coupled with the increasing evidence that preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be of value for these patients may change completely the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to resectable PSLs. These recent breakthroughs suggest the need for a new multidisciplinary consensus meeting to integrate them into the decision-making process assessing the need for preoperative tissue diagnosis in resectable PSLs.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic solid lesions.

The incidence and mortality rates of pancreatic cancer, which has a poor prognosis, are rising rapidly. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) provides superior spatial resolution compared with other imaging modalities such as transabdominal ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and it is considered among the most reliable and efficient diagnostic modalities for pancreatic diseases. In this review, we show that EUS is useful for detection of pancreatic solid lesions and staging of pancreatic cancer. EUS also plays an important role in screening patients with high-risk factors for pancreatic cancer. Although EUS is useful for detection of small pancreatic lesions, pancreatic lesions are difficult to characterize using this modality, because most pancreatic solid lesions appear hypoechoic on EUS. From this point of view, contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) plays an important role in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. EUS and CH-EUS are also useful for staging pancreatic cancer. Moreover, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is superior to other modalities in terms of cytopathological diagnosis. Although EUS-FNA has a high diagnostic ability for pancreatic cancer, the combination of EUS-FNA and CH-EUS improves the diagnostic ability by decreasing the number of false-negative cases. Thus, conventional EUS, EUS-FNA, and CH-EUS are essential in clinical practice for the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions.

Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles.

AIM: To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction techniques. METHODS: From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were analyzed. RESULTS: Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy (90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity (88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination (score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-mL (P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-mL (P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-mL (P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.