Download PDF
Endoscopy 2020; 52(01): 37-44
DOI: 10.1055/a-0966-8755
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Combined versus single use 20 G fine-needle biopsy and 25 G fine-needle aspiration for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of solid gastrointestinal lesions

Priscilla A. van Riet
 1   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
,
Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
 2   Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
,
Mariachiara Petrone
 2   Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
,
Nam Quoc Nguyen
 3   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
,
Masayuki Kitano
 4   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kindai University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan
,
Kenneth Chang
 5   Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, University of California, Irvine, California, United States
,
Alberto Larghi
 6   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
,
Julio Iglesias-Garcia
 7   Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
,
Marc Giovannini
 8   Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France
,
Schalk van der Merwe
 9   Department of Hepatology and Biliopancreatic Disease, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Erwin Santo
10   Department of Gastroenterology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Francisco Baldaque-Silva
11   Gastro Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden
,
Juan Carlos Bucobo
12   Division of Gastroenterology, Stony Brook University Hospital, New York, New York, United States
,
Marco J. Bruno
 1   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
,
Harry R. Aslanian
13   Department of Medicine, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
,
Djuna L. Cahen‡   *
 1   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
,
James Farrell‡   *
13   Department of Medicine, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
› Author AffiliationsTRIAL REGISTRATION: Partially randomized multicenter study trial NCT02167074 at clinicaltrials.gov
Further Information

Publication History

submitted: 09 February 2019

accepted after revision: 12 June 2019

Publication Date:
22 July 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy for solid lesions: Does a “belt and suspenders” approach add value?Endoscopy 2020; 52(01): 9-10
DOI: 10.1055/a-1039-1327

Abstract

Background Instead of choosing one endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) needle over the other, some advocate the use of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) consecutively. We explored the yield of combined use of 20 G FNB and 25 G FNA needles in patients with a suspicious solid gastrointestinal lesion.

Methods Patients from the ASPRO study who were sampled with both needles during the same procedure were included. The incremental yield of dual sampling compared with the yield of single needle use on the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was assessed for both dual sampling approaches – FNA followed by FNB, and vice versa.

Results 73 patients were included. There were 39 (53 %) pancreatic lesions, 18 (25 %) submucosal masses, and 16 (22 %) lymph nodes. FNA was used first in 24 patients (33 %) and FNB was used first in 49 (67 %). Generally, FNB was performed after FNA to collect tissue for ancillary testing (75 %), whereas FNA was used after FNB to allow for on-site pathological assessment (76 %). Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of single needle use increased from 78 % to 92 % with dual sampling (P = 0.002). FNA followed by FNB improved the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (P = 0.03), whereas FNB followed by FNA did not (P = 0.13).

Conclusion Dual sampling only improved diagnostic accuracy when 25 G FNA was followed by 20 G FNB and not vice versa. As the diagnostic benefit of the 20 G FNB over the 25 G FNA needle has recently been proven, sampling with the FNB needle seems a logical first choice.

* These authors contributed equally to this work.


 

  • References

  • 1 Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q. et al. Analysis of fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of pancreatic and abdominal masses: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1314-1321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 van Riet PA, Larghi A, Attili F. et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 329-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Park SW, Chung MJ, Lee SH. et al. Prospective study for comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles in solid pancreatic masses. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ganc R, Colaiacovo R, Carbonari A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, comparative study using the 22 Gauge EchoTip(R) ProCoreTM HD (A) and the 22 Gauge EchoTip(R) Ultra HD (B) endoscopic ultrasound needles. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3 (Suppl. 01) S11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S. et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 343-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hedenstrom P, Demir A, Khodakaram K. et al. EUS-guided reverse bevel fine-needle biopsy sampling and open tip fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions – a prospective, comparative study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53: 231-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Berzosa M, Villa N, El-Serag HB. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided 22-gauge core needle with standard 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound 2015; 4: 28-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cho CM, Al-Haddad M, LeBlanc JK. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Keswani RN, Krishnan K, Wani S. et al. Addition of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration and on-site cytology to EUS-guided fine needle biopsy increases procedure time but not diagnostic accuracy. Clin Endosc 2014; 47: 242-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Aadam AA, Wani S, Amick A. et al. A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E497-505
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R. et al. Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 505-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hajj IIE, Wu H, Reuss S. et al. Prospective assessment of the performance of a new fine needle biopsy device for EUS-guided sampling of solid lesions. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 576-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Saha M, Hossain A, Bhuiyan SH. et al. Role of crush smear cytology in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy. Mymensingh Med J 2014; 23: 496-502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kappelle WFW, Van Leerdam ME, Schwartz MP. et al. Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: a randomized, multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 677-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 El HajjII, LeBlanc JK, Sherman S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic metastases: a large single-center experience. Pancreas 2013; 42: 524-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fuccio L, Larghi A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: How to obtain a core biopsy?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 71-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar