Prospective Study for Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 25- and 22-Gauge Core Biopsy Needles in Solid Pancreatic Masses

Se Woo Park, Moon Jae Chung, Sang Hoon Lee, Hee Seung Lee, Hyun Jik Lee, Jeong Yup Park, Seung Woo Park, Si Young Song, Hoguen Kim, Jae Bock Chung, Seungmin Bang, Se Woo Park, Moon Jae Chung, Sang Hoon Lee, Hee Seung Lee, Hyun Jik Lee, Jeong Yup Park, Seung Woo Park, Si Young Song, Hoguen Kim, Jae Bock Chung, Seungmin Bang

Abstract

Background and aims: Although thicker needles theoretically allow more tissue to be collected, their decreased flexibility can cause mechanical damage to the endoscope, technical failure, and sample blood contamination. The effects of needle gauge on diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of pancreatic mass lesions remain unknown. This study compared procurement rates of histologic cores obtained from EUS-FNB of pancreatic masses using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles.

Patients and methods: From March 2014 to July 2014, 66 patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent EUS-FNB with both 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles. Among them, 10 patients were excluded and thus 56 patients were eligible for the analyses. Needle sequences were randomly assigned, and two passes were made with each needle, consisting of 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with 10 mL syringe suction. A pathologist blinded to needle sequence evaluated specimens for the presence of histologic core.

Results: The mean patient age was 65.8 ± 9.5 years (range, 44-89 years); 35 patients (62.5%) were men. The mean pancreatic mass size was 35.3 ± 17.1 mm (range 14-122.3 mm). Twenty-eight patients (50%) had tumors at the pancreas head or uncinate process. There were no significant differences in procurement rates of histologic cores between 25-gauge (49/56, 87.5%) and 22-gauge (46/56, 82.1%, P = 0.581) needles or diagnostic accuracy using only histologic cores (98% and 95%). There were no technical failures or procedure-related adverse events.

Conclusions: The 25-gauge core biopsy needle could offer acceptable and comparable outcomes regarding diagnostic performance including histologic core procurement rates compared to the 22-gauge core biopsy needle, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01795066.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT Flow diagram of patients…
Fig 1. CONSORT Flow diagram of patients throughout the randomized trial.
A total of 66 patients were enrolled and underwent initial EUS-FNB with 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle in random sequence. Ten patients were excluded for noncompliance with the scheduled examinations. Among them, the target lesion could not be reached because of anatomical alterations due to previous surgery (e.g., maxillary reconstruction, subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth II reconstruction, or total gastrectomy with Roux en Y reconstruction) in 5 patients, significant duodenal stricture as a result of tumor infiltration in 1 patient, and collateral intervening vessels in 2 patients. Two patients were excluded because the target lesions could not be endosonographically visualized. Thus, a total of 56 patients were eligible for the analyses. In total, 28 patients each initially underwent EUS-FNB with 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. No patient experienced technical problems (difficult procedure or needle malfunction), after excluding the aforementioned 10 patients from the 66 total patients.

References

    1. Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S (1992) Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc 38: 172–173.
    1. Gan SI, Rajan E, Adler DG, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Cash BD, et al. (2007) Role of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 66: 425–434.
    1. Maluf-Filho F, Dotti CM, Halwan B, Queiros AF, Kupski C, Chaves DM, et al. (2009) An evidence-based consensus statement on the role and application of endosonography in clinical practice. Endoscopy 41: 979–987. 10.1055/s-0029-1215192
    1. Kida M (2009) Pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 69: S102–109. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.010
    1. Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ (2002) Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 16: 29–38, 43; discussion 44, 47–29, 53–26.
    1. Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM, Wang KK, Clain JE, Wiersema MJ (2001) EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc 53: 485–491.
    1. Mesa H, Stelow EB, Stanley MW, Mallery S, Lai R, Bardales RH (2004) Diagnosis of nonprimary pancreatic neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol 31: 313–318.
    1. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkder I, et al. (2011) Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 73: 1189–1196. 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053
    1. Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Monges G, Petrone MC, Rindi G, et al. (2013) Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 27: 3733–3738. 10.1007/s00464-013-2957-9
    1. Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN, Rotterdam H, Lightdale CJ, Stevens PD (2004) EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 59: 185–190.
    1. Varadarajulu S, Fraig M, Schmulewitz N, Roberts S, Wildi S, Hawes RH, et al. (2004) Comparison of EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy 36: 397–401.
    1. Wahnschaffe U, Ullrich R, Mayerle J, Lerch MM, Zeitz M, Faiss S (2009) EUS-guided Trucut needle biopsies as first-line diagnostic method for patients with intestinal or extraintestinal mass lesions. Surg Endosc 23: 2351–2355. 10.1007/s00464-009-0345-2
    1. Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K, Aithal G (2009) Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 104: 584–591. 10.1038/ajg.2008.97
    1. Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ (2005) EUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 62: 417–426.
    1. Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A, Early D, Gaddam S, Tierney WM, et al. (2013) The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 45: 86–92. 10.1055/s-0032-1325992
    1. Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, Brill JV, Inadomi JM, Kochman ML, et al. (2007) AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology 133: 675–701.
    1. Irisawa A, Hikichi T, Bhutani MS, Ohira H (2009) Basic technique of FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 69: S125–129. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.017
    1. Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C, Cennamo V, Baccarini P, Collina G, et al. (2011) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis 43: 647–652. 10.1016/j.dld.2011.04.005
    1. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S (2012) Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 76: 321–327. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1392
    1. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, et al. (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37: 383–393.
    1. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB, Park do H, Zhang Z, Gu M, et al. (2013) High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 77: 909–915. 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.001
    1. Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG (2009) Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 41: 445–448. 10.1055/s-0029-1214643
    1. Imazu H, Uchiyama Y, Kakutani H, Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Kaise M, et al. (2009) A prospective comparison of EUS-guided FNA using 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2009: 546390 10.1155/2009/546390
    1. Lee JK, Lee KT, Choi ER, Jang TH, Jang KT, Lee JK, et al. (2013) A prospective, randomized trial comparing 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. Scand J Gastroenterol 48: 752–757. 10.3109/00365521.2013.786127
    1. Kida M, Araki M, Miyazawa S, Ikeda H, Takezawa M, Kikuchi H, et al. (2011) Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in the same patients. J Interv Gastroenterol 1: 102–107.
    1. Ghaneh P, Costello E, Neoptolemos JP (2007) Biology and management of pancreatic cancer. Gut 56: 1134–1152.
    1. Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, Dote K, et al. (2009) Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24: 384–390. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05636.x
    1. Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA, Anandasabapathy S, Xiao L, Staerkel G (2009) Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 54: 2274–2281. 10.1007/s10620-009-0906-1

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit