A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo; Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; Duarte, Rubens Tadeu Delgado; Coronel, Martin; Santos, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; Cheng, Spencer; Matuguma, Sérgio; Chaves, Dalton Marques; Bernardo, Wanderley Marques; Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de

doi:10.6061/clinics/2018/e261

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials did not show a significant difference between different needle sizes. 32 In summary, this is the largest multicenter study to specifically compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events. Results: A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort. Conclusions: Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUS-FNA+ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses. Clin Endosc 2019 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print]

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, we included different needles sizes for FNA and FNB groups. However, a meta-analysis including just RCT did not show significant difference between different needles sizes [8]. We did not evaluate the needles regarding the various types of pancreatic masses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions is a safe procedure, associated with high diagnostic accuracy, usually above 85 %, and ▶ Table 3 Comparison between FNA and FNB based on EUS-tissue sampling access. typically better when ROSE is available [6][7][8]. However, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA with cytology is insufficient to verify cellular arrangement and tissue architecture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diagnosis of pancreatic lesions was significantly improved with application of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been the mainstay for tissue acquisition for evaluation of pancreatic lesions since 1990s, with sensitivity varying from 88 % to 100 % and specificity of up to 100 % [5][6][7][8][9]. Despite the success of EUS-FNA, the diagnostic sampling technique has several limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 %; P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41–4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

show abstract

“…In a review of a number of randomized clinical trials, one study showed a tendency towards higher accuracy of the 25-G needle [ 43 ], whereas the others showed a similar diagnostic yield of malignancy [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. Studies comparing FNA with 22-G and 25-G needles were also reviewed as five meta-analyses [ 41 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. However, more recent meta-analyses showed different results.…”

Section: Needle Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is among the most important tools for the evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors and affected areas around the gastrointestinal tract. It enables the acquisition of material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue confirmation via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has played a vital role in oncological care and has become the standard method for tissue sampling. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining tissue acquisition and has been evaluated by many researchers. New needles are introduced into the market almost every year, and opinions vary regarding proper needle selection. While there are diverse opinions but no definitive recommendations about the use of one particular device, fine-needle biopsy needles may provide detailed information on a tissue’s architecture based on greater sample yields. This permits additional analyses, including genetic sequencing and phenotyping, thereby enabling the provision of more personalized treatment plans. Furthermore, other EUS-guided procedures have been developed, including interventional EUS and through-the-needle devices. Given the continued attempts to improve the diagnostic ability and therapeutic techniques, we review in detail the available types of puncture needles to provide guidance on the selection of the appropriate needle types.

show abstract

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 35 publications

References 33 publications

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About