Advertisement

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study

Published:March 23, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1405

      Background and Aims

      EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions.

      Methods

      This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles.

      Results

      Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges.

      Conclusions

      The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

      Abbreviations:

      EUS-FNA (EUS-guided FNA), EUS-FNB (EUS-guided fine needle biopsy), EUS-TNB (EUS-guided Tru-Cut needle biopsy), EUS-FNB-SC (EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using the Shark Core needle), ROSE (rapid onsite cytologic evaluation)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Singh P.
        • Erickson R.A.
        • Mukhopadhyay P.
        • et al.
        EUS for detection of the hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a prospective study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66: 265-273
        • Yasuda I.
        • Tsurumi H.
        • Omar S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for lymphadenopathy of unknown origin.
        Endoscopy. 2006; 38: 919-924
        • DeWitt J.
        • Alsatie M.
        • LeBlanc J.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of left adrenal gland masses.
        Endoscopy. 2007; 39: 65-71
        • Yoshinaga S.
        • Suzuki H.
        • Oda I.
        • et al.
        Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.
        Dig Endosc. 2011; 23: 29-33
        • Hewitt M.J.
        • McPhail M.J.
        • Possamai L.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75: 319-331
        • Itoi T.
        • Sofuni A.
        • Itokawa F.
        • et al.
        Current status of diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions.
        Dig Endosc. 2011; 23: 17-21
        • Iglesias-Garcia J.
        • Dominguez-Munoz J.E.
        • Abdulkader I.
        • et al.
        Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106: 1705-1710
        • Na H.K.
        • Lee J.H.
        • Park Y.S.
        • et al.
        Yields and utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided 19-gauge trucut biopsy versus 22-gauge fine needle aspiration for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors.
        Clin Endosc. 2015; 48: 152-157
        • Mizuno N.
        • Bhatia V.
        • Hosoda W.
        • et al.
        Histological diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using EUS-guided trucut biopsy: a comparison study with EUS-FNA.
        J Gastroenterol. 2009; 44: 742-750
        • Ribeiro A.
        • Vazquez-Sequeiros E.
        • Wiersema L.M.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 53: 485-491
        • Wani S.
        • Muthusamy V.R.
        • Komanduri S.
        EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 80: 939-959
        • Bang J.Y.
        • Hawes R.
        • Varadarajulu S.
        A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
        Endoscopy. 2016; 48: 339-349
        • Gerke H.
        • Rizk M.K.
        • Vanderheyden A.D.
        • et al.
        Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction.
        Cytopathology. 2010; 21: 44-51
        • Francis D.L.
        • Kane S.V.
        • Prabhakar S.
        • et al.
        Validation of a multidisciplinary infrastructure to capture adverse events in a high-volume endoscopy unit.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 221-227
        • Varadarajulu S.
        • Fraig M.
        • Schmulewitz N.
        • et al.
        Comparison of EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.
        Endoscopy. 2004; 36: 397-401
        • Cho C.M.
        • Al-Haddad M.
        • LeBlanc J.K.
        • et al.
        Rescue endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided trucut biopsy following suboptimal EUS-guided fine needle aspiration for mediastinal lesions.
        Gut Liver. 2013; 7: 150-156
        • Ginès A.
        • Wiersema M.J.
        • Clain J.E.
        • et al.
        Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62: 597-601
        • Levy M.J.
        • Jondal M.L.
        • Clain J.
        • et al.
        Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 101-106
        • Wittmann J.
        • Kocjan G.
        • Sgouros S.N.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study.
        Cytopathology. 2006; 17: 27-33
        • Aithal G.P.
        • Anagnostopoulos G.K.
        • Tam W.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of “dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with “sequential sampling” (Trucut biopsy and then FNA as required).
        Endoscopy. 2007; 39: 725-730
        • Mavrogenis G.
        • Weynand B.
        • Sibille A.
        • et al.
        25-gauge histology needle versus 22-gauge cytology needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions and lymphadenopathy.
        Endosc Int Open. 2015; 3: E63-E68
        • Vanbiervliet G.
        • Napoleon B.
        • Saint Paul M.C.
        • et al.
        Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study.
        Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 1063-1070
        • Woo Y.S.
        • Park G.E.
        • Oh S.
        • et al.
        Mo1415 randomizied trial comparing 22 and 25 gauge core biopsy needles for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic mass.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79 ([abstract]): AB428
        • Aadam A.A.
        • Amick A.E.
        • Shah J.N.
        • et al.
        A multicenter prospective randomized controlled cross-over trial comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79 ([abstract]): AB188-AB189
        • Dimaio C.J.
        • Kolb J.M.
        • Benias P.C.
        • et al.
        Tu1638 initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (Sharkcore™): a North American multicenter study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81 ([abstract]): AB540-AB541
        • Wahnschaffe U.
        • Ullrich R.
        • Mayerle J.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided Trucut needle biopsies as first-line diagnostic method for patients with intestinal or extraintestinal mass lesions.
        Surg Endosc. 2009; 23: 2351-2355
        • Iwashita T.
        • Yasuda I.
        • Doi S.
        • et al.
        Use of samples from endoscopic ultrasound–guided 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 10: 316-322