Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study

Background and aims: The ability to safely and effectively obtain sufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance remains a challenge. Novel designs in EUS needles may provide for improved ability to obtain such core biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of core biopsy specimens obtained using a novel EUS needle specifically designed to obtain core biopsies.

Patients and methods: Multicenter retrospective review of all EUS-guided fine-needle biopsies obtained using a novel biopsy needle (SharkCore FNB needle, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland). Data regarding patient demographics, lesion type/location, technical parameters, and diagnostic yield was obtained.

Results: A total of 250 lesions were biopsied in 226 patients (Median age 66 years; 113 (50 %) male). Median size of all lesions (mm): 26 (2 – 150). Overall, a cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 81 % specimens with a median number of 3 passes. When rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) was used, cytologic diagnostic yield was 126/149 (85 %) with a median number of 3 passes; without ROSE, cytologic diagnostic yield was 31/45 (69 %, P = 0.03) with a median number of 3 passes. Overall, a pathologic diagnosis was rendered in 130/147 (88 %) specimens with a median number of 2 passes. Pathologic diagnostic yield for specific lesion types: pancreas 70/81 (86 %), subepithelial lesion 13/15 (87 %), lymph node 26/28 (93 %). Ten patients (10/226, 4 %) experienced adverse events: 4 acute pancreatitis, 5 pain, 1 fever/cholangitis.

Conclusions: Initial experience with a novel EUS core biopsy needle demonstrates excellent pathologic diagnostic yield with a minimum number of passes.

• References

• 1 Itoi T, Takei K, Sofuni A et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of p53 and MIB-1 in tissue specimens obtained from endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Oncol Rep 2005; 13: 229-234
• 2 Brais RJ, Davies SE, O’Donovan M et al. Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trials. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 8-15
• 3 Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN et al. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 185-190
• 4 Wittmann J, Kocjan G, Sgouros SN et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 27-33
• 5 Aithal GP, Anagnostopoulos GK, Tam W et al. EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of “dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with “sequential sampling” (Truct biopsy and then FNA as required). Endoscopy 2007; 39: 725-730
• 6 Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Guldhammer Skov B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 117-125
• 7 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 384-390
• 8 Polkowski M, Gerke W, Jarosz D et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut [corrected] biopsy in patients with gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 329-334
• 9 Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K et al. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 584-591
• 10 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
• 11 Gerke H, Rizk MK, Vanderheyden AD et al. Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction. Cytopathology 2010; 21: 44-51
• 12 DeWitt J, Emerson RE, Sherman S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 2192-2202
• 13 Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J et al. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 321-327
• 14 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW et al. Feasibility and yield of novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3733-3738
• 15 Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 792-798
• 16 Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 347-354
• 17 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallet group study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1056-1062
• 18 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 iglelymphadenopathy. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E63-E68
• 19 Strand DS, Jeffus SK, Sauer BG et al. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy needle in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 751-758
• 20 Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Paul MCS 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
• 21 Bang JY, 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
• 22 Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut 2000; 46: 244-249
• 23 Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye CE et al. EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using high negative pressure suction for the evaluation of solid masses: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 768-774
• 24 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
• 25 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
• 26 Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R et al. EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 504-510
• 27 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 336-343
• 28 Eckardt AJ, Adler A, Gomes EM et al. Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1135-1144
• 29 Al-Haddad MA, Aggarwal A, Arnan A. EUS-Guided Core Biopsy with a novel 19-Gauge Flexible Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) Device: multicenter experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB403-AB404
• 30 Philipper M, Hollerbach S, Gabbert HE et al. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and surgical histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 300-305
• 31 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Sendino O, Sole M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 292-299
• 32 Yoshida S, Yamashita K, Yokozawa M et al. Diagnostic findings of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: proposal of a combined cytology with newly defined features and histology diagnosis. Pathol Int 2009; 59: 712-719
• 33 Akahoshi K, Sumida Y, Matsui N et al. Preoperative diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 2077-2082
• 34 Ando N, Goto H, Niwa Y et al. The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 37-43
• 35 Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of intramural and extraintestinal mass lesions: diagnostic accuracy, complication assessment, and impact on management. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 984-989
• 36 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106 (09) 1705-1710
• 37 Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE et al. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1289-1294
• 38 Ecka RS, Sharma M. Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 1075-1080
• 39 Early DS, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V et al. Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839-843
• 40 Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 283-290