Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(06): E505-E512
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105492
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

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

Brian R. Weston
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
William A. Ross
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Manoop S. Bhutani
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Jeffrey H. Lee
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Mala Pande
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Andrew B. Sholl
2   Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
,
Savitri Krishnamurthy
1   The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 30 October 2016

accepted after revision 06 February 2017

Publication Date:
07 June 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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)

Meeting presentations: Digestive Disease Week 2015

 

  • References

  • 1 Madhoun MF, Wani SB, 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bang JY, 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chen AM, Park WG, Friedland S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration versus fine needle capillary sampling biopsy of pancreatic solid lesions: does technique matter?. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73 (Suppl. 04) AB331(1396)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ. et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 1578-1585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kothari S, Chen AM, Pai R. et al. Comparison of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy techniques using the Procore needle. Gastrointes Endosc 2012; 75: AB145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB. 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Savides TJ, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bang JY, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Giovannini MM, Genevieve MM, Iglesias-Garcia J. et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of a novel 22-G echo-tip Procore histology EUS-needle in patients with a solid pancreatic mass. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: AB152-AB153 (abstract)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 417-426
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener MK. et al. Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumors of the pancreas. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 5-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L. et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Puli SR, Bechtold MK, Buxbaum JL. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M. et al. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087-1095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Iglesias-Garcia JA, 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nguyen N. Sa1518 EUS guided fine needle core biopsy versus aspiration for upper gastrointestinal mass lesions: A randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: AB188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW. 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Witt BL, Adler DG, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Saint Paul MC. 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK. 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye CE. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lee JK, Choi LH, Lee KH. et al. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wani S. Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: Role of a sytlet and suction. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 17-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wani S, Muthusamy R, Komanduri S. EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 939-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Berzosa M, Villa N, El Serag HB. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar