Dataset Information

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions.

Materials and methods

This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated.

Results

A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%.

Conclusions

SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.

SUBMITTER: Li SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9921982 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

Li Shi-Yu SY Shi Lei L Yao Jun J Zhou Wei W Wang Zhi-Jie ZJ Jiang Yue-Ping YP Wang Xiao-Wei XW Zhou Chun-Hua CH Gao Li L Jiang Hui H Chen Ying Y Li Zhao-Shen ZS Jin Zhen-Dong ZD Wang Kai-Xuan KX

Endoscopic ultrasound 20221101 6

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients wi ...[more]

PMID: 36537384

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles were designed to improve histologic yield, while maintaining the flexibility to permit ease of use. However, the diagnostic benefit of EUS-FNB needles as compared to the conventional fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles remains unclear. This study aimed to identify the diagnostic accuracy of combined needle use of a new 20-gauge ProCore FNB needle and a 25-gauge FNA needle. Methods: For this study, cases were selected in which both the 20-gauge ProCore FNB needle and the 25-gauge FNA needle were used during a single EUS procedure for sampling of a solid pancreatic mass, lymph node, or submucosal mass. Tissue acquisition was performed in the course of the ASPRO trial, a multicenter randomized study comparing the diagnostic value of 20-gauge ProCore FNB and 25-gauge FNA needles (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02167074). The protocol allowed additional sampling with the nonassigned needle, at the discretion of an endosonographer. Results: Of all 615 patients who were randomized for the ASPRO study, 74 were sampled with both needle types. In these combined needle cases, FNA was used first in 24 and ProCore FNB in 50 cases. Target lesions encompassed 39 solid pancreatic lesions, 18 submucosal masses, and 17 lymph nodes. Most pancreatic lesions were located in the head (25/39), lymph nodes were mainly located in the abdomen (15/18), and submucosal lesions were located in the stomach (8/20), esophagus (4/20), small intestines (3/20), and rectum (3/20). The main reason to use ProCore in addition to FNA was to collect more tissue for ancillary testing (79%). FNA was generally used in addition to ProCore to allow for on-site pathological assessment (76%). The regimen of FNA followed by ProCore resulted in 100% accuracy, while for ProCore followed by FNA, 88% was reached (P = 0.086). The type of target lesion, either pancreatic or nonpancreatic, did not affect the diagnostic accuracy of the two sampling regimens (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.22–6.61, P = 0.834). Conclusion: FNA followed by ProCore FNB provides for a 100% diagnostic accuracy and tends to outperform ProCore FNB followed by FNA. Accuracy rates were independent of the type of target lesion.

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.ConclusionsEUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Dataset Information

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

Background and objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets