Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637602
ESGE Days 2018 ePosters
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

COMPARISON OF EUS-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY TECHNIQUES FOR CORE TISSUE ACQUISITION AND DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCES IN PANCREATIC SOLID LESIONS

CM Cho
1   Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu, Korea, Republic of
,
AN Seo
2   Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Daegu, Korea, Republic of
,
HI Bae
2   Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Daegu, Korea, Republic of
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

The acquisition of core tissue in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling (EUS-TS) is necessary for histologic diagnosis and immunohistochemical staining in the diagnosis of some solid mass lesions. Although recent studies revealed the superiority of core biopsy needle in the specimen adequacy, controversy still remains that which EUS-TS techniques would contribute better results. The aim of our study was to evaluate EUS-TS techniques with a ProCore needle using suction and slow pull suction for solid pancreatic lesions without an on-site cytopaphologist.

Methods:

Patients who referred to EUS-TS for pancreatic mass lesion were enrolled. We performed EUS-TS using a ProCore needle (Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland) with two needle passes and applied each pass of different techniques (suction or slow pull suction) which were randomly allocated. EUS-TS specimens were evaluated by one experienced cytopathologist who was blinded to applied techniques. The acquisition of core tissue and diagnostic performances were compared between two techniques.

Results:

From Aug. 2014 to Dec. 2016, 94 patients with pancreatic mass were enrolled and 12 patients were excluded due to no final diagnosis (n = 5), cystic lesion (n = 5) and loss of follow up after EUS-TS (n = 2). Finally, 82 patients (48 males; median age, 63 years) with 164 needle passes were included without technical failure and procedure-related adverse events. The median size of the lesion was 26 mm. There were 68 malignant and 14 benign lesions. Overall core tissue acquisition and diagnostic accuracy was 84.8% and 73.2%. There was no significant difference between two techniques in the acquisition of core tissue (85.4% vs. 84.1%, p = 1.000) and diagnostic accuracy (72.0% vs. 74.4%, p = 0.860).

Conclusions:

Although our study revealed no differences between EUS-TS techniques in core tissue acquisition and diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic solid lesions, further prospective study is needed to validate for optimal application and sequences of EUS-FNB techniques.