Abdullah Alatawi1, Frédéric Beuvon2, Sophie Grabar3, Sarah Leblanc1, Stanislas Chaussade4, Benoit Terris5, Maximilien Barret4, Frédéric Prat4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Cochin Hospital, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre, Paris, France. 2. Department of Histopathology, Cochin Hospital, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre, Paris, France. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cochin Hospital, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre, Paris, France ; Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Cochin Hospital, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre, Paris, France ; Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 5. Department of Histopathology, Cochin Hospital, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre, Paris, France ; Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using standard needles has a high diagnostic value in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses. Fenestrated needles have been developed to improve the quality of EUS-guided tissue sampling by providing core biopsies (FNB). METHODS:Patients with solid pancreatic masses of >2 cm were prospectively included in our study and randomized to receive EUS sampling, using either a standard 22G FNA or a 22G Procore® FNB needle. The main study endpoint was the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis in more than 90% of cases. RESULTS: We included 100 patients (male = 63, female = 37; meanage = 68.4 years) in our study. We found that 88% of the lesions were malignant, with a mean size of 32 mm. A sample adequate for diagnosis was obtained in more than 90% of cases after the second needle pass in the FNB group, versus the third needle pass in the FNA group. Slide cellularity and presence of tissue microfragments were significantly higher in the FNB group. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy was 88.4% versus 97.8% for the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB group, respectively, while specificity for both techniques was 100%. No complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Although the accuracy of both needle types for proving malignancy was similar, a lower number of passes was required with the FNB needles to achieve the same contributive sample rate as with the FNA needles. FNB also improved the histopathological quality of specimens, suggesting an overall superiority of FNB sampling.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using standard needles has a high diagnostic value in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses. Fenestrated needles have been developed to improve the quality of EUS-guided tissue sampling by providing core biopsies (FNB). METHODS:Patients with solid pancreatic masses of >2 cm were prospectively included in our study and randomized to receive EUS sampling, using either a standard 22G FNA or a 22G Procore® FNB needle. The main study endpoint was the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis in more than 90% of cases. RESULTS: We included 100 patients (male = 63, female = 37; mean age = 68.4 years) in our study. We found that 88% of the lesions were malignant, with a mean size of 32 mm. A sample adequate for diagnosis was obtained in more than 90% of cases after the second needle pass in the FNB group, versus the third needle pass in the FNA group. Slide cellularity and presence of tissue microfragments were significantly higher in the FNB group. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy was 88.4% versus 97.8% for the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB group, respectively, while specificity for both techniques was 100%. No complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Although the accuracy of both needle types for proving malignancy was similar, a lower number of passes was required with the FNB needles to achieve the same contributive sample rate as with the FNA needles. FNB also improved the histopathological quality of specimens, suggesting an overall superiority of FNB sampling.
Authors: Julia Kim LeBlanc; Donato Ciaccia; Mohammed T Al-Assi; Kevin McGrath; Tom Imperiale; Liang-Che Tao; Steve Vallery; John DeWitt; Stuart Sherman; Edith Collins Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Takuji Iwashita; Yousuke Nakai; Jason B Samarasena; Do Hyun Park; Zesong Zhang; Mai Gu; John G Lee; Kenneth J Chang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Daniel S Strand; Susanne K Jeffus; Bryan G Sauer; Andrew Y Wang; Edward B Stelow; Vanessa M Shami Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Elia Armellini; Erminia Manfrin; Elena Trisolini; Silvano Andorno; Marco Ballarè; Laura Bernardoni; Renzo Luciano Boldorini; Armando Gabbrielli; Luca Frulloni; Alberto Larghi; Pietro Occhipinti; Aldo Scarpa; Stefano Francesco Crinò Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-09-30 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Muhammad Ali Khan; Ian S Grimm; Bilal Ali; Richard Nollan; Claudio Tombazzi; Mohammad Kashif Ismail; Todd H Baron Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-05
Authors: Samuel Han; Furqan Bhullar; Omar Alaber; Ayesha Kamal; Puanani Hopson; Kavin Kanthasamy; Sarah Coughlin; Livia Archibugi; Nikhil Thiruvengadam; Christopher Moreau; David Jin; Pedram Paragomi; Francisco Valverde-López; Sajan Nagpal; Cemal Yazici; Georgios Papchristou; Peter J Lee; Venkata Akshintala Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27