Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study

Background and study aims: Histological examination of core tissue samples may have advantages over cytology in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core biopsy needle.

Patients and methods: Consecutive patients with a pancreatic mass lesion or peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy sequentially underwent fine needle biopsy with both a newly developed 22G core needle (the FNB needle) and a standard 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needle, in randomized order.

Results: In 144 patients, mean age 48 years (± standard deviation [SD] 14; range 18 – 82), with 145 lesions (mean lesion size 39 ± 15 mm, range 15 – 99), EUS-guided sampling was technically feasible with both needles in all patients. Mean number of passes to obtain sufficient tissue was 1.2 ± 0.5 with the core needle vs. 2.5 ± 0.9 with the standard needle (P < 0.001). FNB specimens were adequate for evaluation in 125 (86.2 %) vs. 127 (87.6 %) with FNA (P = 0.72). Among 139 patients available for follow-up, FNB provided a correct diagnosis in 110 (79.1 %) and FNA in 112 (80.6 %) (P = 0.73). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 90 %, 100 %, 100 %, 93 %, 96 % for FNB and 77 %, 100 %, 100 %, 85 %, 92 % for FNA, respectively (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: FNB with the new 22G core needle was technically feasible, efficient and comparable to FNA with a standard needle. The core needle required fewer passes to provide an adequate sample, offering potentially shorter procedure time.

• References

• 1 Rosch T. Endoscopic ultrasonography. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1329-1331
• 2 Hawes RH. Endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2000; 10: 161-174, viii
• 3 Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum IA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2663-2668
• 4 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
• 5 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M et al. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087-1095
• 6 Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 45: 243-250
• 7 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
• 8 Hawes RH. The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound: improved imaging, higher accuracy for fine needle aspiration and the reality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2010; 26: 436-444
• 9 Kopelman Y, Marmor S, Ashkenazi I et al. Value of EUS-FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours. Cytopathology 2011; 22: 174-178
• 10 Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Caudill JL et al. False positive endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology: incidence and risk factors. Gut 2010; 59: 586-593
• 11 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
• 12 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
• 13 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
• 14 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
• 15 Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 417-426
• 16 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
• 17 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
• 18 Cherian PT, Mohan P, Douiri A et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12: 389-395
• 19 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