Comparison of Ultrasound‐Guided Core Needle Biopsy and Endoscopic Ultrasound‐Guided Fine‐Needle Aspiration for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Abstract

The diagnostic yield of US-guided CNB for solid pancreatic lesions is superior to that of EUS-guided FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine‐needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

“…9 A core biopsy specimen has many supposed advantages over an aspirated cytologic specimen including better diagnostic yield and lower number of needle passes required to collect an adequate sample. [11][12][13] The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for solid pancreatic mass lesions. [11][12][13] The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for solid pancreatic mass lesions.…”

“…10 However, many studies have been conflicting in terms of examining the ability of CNB to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of required needle passes. [11][12][13] The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for solid pancreatic mass lesions. We hypothesize that EUS-CNB is superior to EUS-FNA for the sampling of solid pancreatic masses in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the number of passes required to formulate an accurate diagnosis.…”

Fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy: An update on 2 common minimally invasive tissue sampling modalities

“…[42][43][44] In a study evaluating pancreatic mass sampling via EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle compared with percutaneous ultrasound-guided CNB using an 18-gauge needle, Sur et al described no significant differences with regard to the accuracy, technical failure rate, sensitivity, or specificity between modalities; however, CNB had a significantly higher diagnostic yield (86%) compared with EUS-FNA (66%). 45 More recent advances in needle technology have enabled the endoscopist to obtain true tissue fragments comparable to CNB specimens from the minimally invasive endoscopic approach, such as the cutting reverse bevel EchoTip ProCore needle (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) or the cutting SharkCore needle (Beacon Endoscopic, Newton, Mass). Although one study demonstrated the superiority of EUS-FNA using a 22-gauge needle compared with 22-gauge EUS-EchoTip ProCore biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions, 43 other publications have described superior diagnostic yield, more cellular cell blocks for ancillary testing, and more specific tumor characterization for EUS-EchoTip ProCore biopsies compared with EUS-FNA specimens.…”

“…EUS‐FNA has a proven track record as a relatively safe procedure for sampling solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies in the range of 80% to 95% . In a study evaluating pancreatic mass sampling via EUS‐FNA with a 25‐gauge needle compared with percutaneous ultrasound‐guided CNB using an 18‐gauge needle, Sur et al described no significant differences with regard to the accuracy, technical failure rate, sensitivity, or specificity between modalities; however, CNB had a significantly higher diagnostic yield (86%) compared with EUS‐FNA (66%) . More recent advances in needle technology have enabled the endoscopist to obtain true tissue fragments comparable to CNB specimens from the minimally invasive endoscopic approach, such as the cutting reverse bevel EchoTip ProCore needle (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) or the cutting SharkCore needle (Beacon Endoscopic, Newton, Mass).…”

1.0T MR‐guided percutaneous coaxial cutting needle biopsy in pancreatic lesion diagnosis

“…An alternative modality for biopsy of pancreatic lesions is imaging‐guided percutaneous core needle biopsy, which can provide a histologic specimen and does not require an endoscopic procedure or sedation. Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are most often used for guiding percutaneous pancreas biopsy . Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers many inherent advantages over CT and US in terms of superior soft‐tissue contrast resolution, blood flow‐empty action, a nonionizing nature, and direct multiplanar capabilities.…”