Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel-group study

Background and study aims: An endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) device using a core biopsy needle was developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by simultaneously obtaining cytological aspirates and histological core samples. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with standard EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with solid pancreatic masses.

Patients and methods: Between January 2012 and May 2013, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo EUS-FNB using a core biopsy needle or EUS-FNA using a standard aspiration needle at a single tertiary center. The specimen was analyzed by onsite cytology, Papanicolaou-stain cytology, and histology. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. The secondary outcome measures were: the median number of passes required to establish a diagnosis, the proportion of patients in whom the diagnosis was established with each pass, and complication rates.

Results: The overall accuracy of combining onsite cytology with Papanicolaou-stain cytology and histology was not significantly different for the FNB (n = 58) and FNA (n = 58) groups (98.3 % [95 %CI 94.9 % – 100 %] vs. 94.8 % [95 %CI 91.9 % – 100 %]; P = 0.671). Compared with FNA, FNB required a significantly lower median number of needle passes to establish a diagnosis (1.0 vs. 2.0; P < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of 111 patients with malignant lesions, the proportion of patients in whom malignancy was diagnosed on the first pass was significantly greater in the FNB group (72.7 % vs. 37.5 %; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The overall accuracy of FNB and FNA in patients with solid pancreatic masses was comparable; however, fewer passes were required to establish the diagnosis of malignancy using FNB.

This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000014057).

• References

• 1 Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I et al. Quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography: an accurate method for the differentiation of solid pancreatic masses. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1172-1180
• 2 Erickson RA, Garza AA. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound on the management and outcome of pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2248-2254
• 3 Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319-331
• 4 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
• 5 Chen G, Liu S, Zhao Y et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 298-304
• 6 Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL et al. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? A meta-analysis and systematic review. . Pancreas 2013; 42: 20-26
• 7 Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V et al. Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 973-981
• 8 Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Shahid H et al. False-positive EUS-guided FNA cytology for solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 535-540
• 9 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M et al. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087-1095
• 10 Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 485-491
• 11 Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 184-190
• 12 Mesa H, Stelow EB, Stanley MW et al. Diagnosis of nonprimary pancreatic neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 31: 313-318
• 13 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189-1196
• 14 Bang JY, Ramesh J, Trevino J et al. Objective assessment of an algorithmic approach to EUS-guided FNA and interventions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 739-744
• 15 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. A triple approach for diagnostic assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pancreatic solid masses and lymph nodes. Epub ahead of print 2014 Apr 16. Dig Dis Sci
• 16 Lin F, Staerkel G. Cytologic criteria for well differentiated adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Cancer 2003; 99: 44-50
• 17 Moller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 60-69
• 18 Afify AM, al-Khafaji BM, Kim B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas. Diagnostic utility and accuracy. . Acta Cytol 2003; 47: 341-348
• 19 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 (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
• 20 Turner BG, Cizginer S, Agarwal D et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 91-98
• 21 Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1739-1745
• 22 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
• 23 Noda Y, Fujita N, Kobayashi G et al. Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 868-875
• 24 Binmoeller KF, Thul R, Rathod V et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided, 18-gauge, fine needle aspiration biopsy of the pancreas using a 2.8 mm channel convex array echoendoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47: 121-127
• 25 Levy MJ, Jondal ML, Clain J et al. Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 101-106
• 26 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
• 27 Aithal GP, Anagnostopoulos GK, 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
• 28 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
• 29 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
• 30 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
• 31 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 909-915