Prospective randomized comparison of a 22G core needle using standard versus capillary suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses

Brian R Weston, William A Ross, Manoop S Bhutani, Jeffrey H Lee, Mala Pande, Andrew B Sholl, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Brian R Weston, William A Ross, Manoop S Bhutani, Jeffrey H Lee, Mala Pande, Andrew B Sholl, Savitri Krishnamurthy

Abstract

Background and study aims: The optimal technique for sampling pancreatic lesions with a 22 G Procore needle (pc) is unknown. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 22 Gpc using standard suction technique (SST) and capillary suction technique (CST) and compare diagnostic adequacy of 22 Gpc with the standard 25 G needle.

Patients and methods: Sixty consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass were prospectively evaluated. All patients underwent 2 passes with a standard 25 G needle for cytologic analysis. The first group of 30 patients underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using SST for cytology and histology. The second group underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using CST. The sequence of passes was randomized. The diagnostic adequacy of each pass was graded by 2 cytopathologists blinded to technique and needle type for comparison.

Results: For a cytologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 82.8 % SST vs. 80.0 % CST ( P = 0.79). For a histologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 70.4 % SST vs. 69.0 % CST ( P = 0.91). A single pass with 22 Gpc provided comparable results to a single pass with the 25 G needle for a cytologic diagnosis; both were superior to a single 22 Gpc pass for a histologic diagnosis. Two passes with the 25 G needle provided a diagnostic specimen in 95.0 % vs 81.4 % with one pass using 22 Gpc ( P = 0.01).

Conclusions: No significant difference in diagnostic adequacy was observed between techniques for the 22 Gpc. Two passes with a 25 G needle performed better than 1 pass with 22 Gpc. (NCT01598194).

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests None

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Definition and description of study techniques.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participant flow diagram.

References

    1. Madhoun M F, Wani S B, Rastogi A et al.The diagnostic accuracy of 22 G and 25 G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta analysis. Endoscopy. 2013;45:86–92.
    1. Affolter K E, Schmidt R L, Matynia A P et al.Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58:1026–1034.
    1. Bang J Y, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy. 2016;48:339–349.
    1. Chen A M, Park W G, Friedland al.Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration versus fine needle capillary sampling biopsy of pancreatic solid lesions: does technique matter? Gastrointest Endosc 20117304AB331(1396)
    1. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang K J et al.Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:1578–1585.
    1. Kothari S, Chen A M, Pai R et al.Comparison of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy techniques using the Procore needle. Gastrointes Endosc. 2012;75:AB145.
    1. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena J B et al.Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNAB) using a novel 25-gauge core biopsy needle: optimizing the yield of both cytology and histology. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB183.
    1. Savides T J, Donohue M, Hunt G et al.EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:277–282.
    1. Bang J Y, 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.
    1. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley J W, 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.
    1. Giovannini M M, Genevieve M M, Iglesias-Garcia Jet al.Prospective multicenter evaluation of a novel 22-G echo-tip Procore histology EUS-needle in patients with a solid pancreatic mass Gastrointest Endosc 201173AB152–AB153.(abstract)
    1. Levy M J, Wiersema M J. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:417–426.
    1. Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener M K et al.Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumors of the pancreas. Br J Surg. 2009;96:5–20.
    1. Hewitt M J, McPhail M J, Possamai L et al.EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:319–331.
    1. Puli S R, Bechtold M K, Buxbaum J L et al.How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas. 2013;42:20–26.
    1. Chen G, Liu S, Zhao Y et al.Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-beedle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2013;13:298–304.
    1. Wiersema M J, Vilmann P, Giovannini M et al.Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:1087–1095.
    1. Iglesias-Garcia J A, Larino-Noia J, Dominguez-Munoz E. Sa1563 Differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: Do procore histology needles improve the diagnostic yield of standard cytology needles? Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB2f03.
    1. Nguyen N. Sa1518 EUS guided fine needle core biopsy versus aspiration for upper gastrointestinal mass lesions: A randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB188.
    1. Huci T, Wee E, Anuradha S et al.Feasibilty and efficiency of a new 22 G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy. 2013;45:792–798.
    1. Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley J W et al.Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;45:3733–3738.
    1. Witt B L, Adler D G, Hilden K et al. A comparative needle study: EUS-FNA procedures using the HD ProCore™ and EchoTip ® 22-gauge needle types . Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41:1069–1074.
    1. Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Saint Paul M C et al.Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy. 2014;46:1063–1070.
    1. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena J B et al.High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:909–915.
    1. Lee Y N, Moon J H, Kim H K et al.Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel group–study. Endoscopy. 2014;46:1056–1062.
    1. Puri R, Vilmann P, Saftoiu A et al.Randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle sampling with or without suction for better cytological diagnosis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:499–504.
    1. Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye C E et al.EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using high negative pressure suction for the evaluation of solid masses: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:768–774.
    1. Lee J K, Choi L H, Lee K H et al.A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:745–751.
    1. Kudo T, Kawakami H, Hayashi T et al.High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:1030–1037.
    1. Kundu S, Conway J, Gilbert K et al.Suctiuon or no suction? Interval results from an ongoing prospective, partially blind randomized trial of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:S248.
    1. Wani S. Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: Role of a sytlet and suction. Endosc Ultrasound. 2014;3:17–21.
    1. Wani S, Muthusamy R, Komanduri S. EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos) Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:939–959.
    1. Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B et al.Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2012;44:190–206.
    1. Berzosa M, Villa N, El Serag H B et al.Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided 22-gauge core needle with standard 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2015;4:28–33.
    1. Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz J E, Abdulkader I et al.Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1705–1710.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi