Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition by 22-Gauge Franseen and Standard Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.
Endoscopic ultrasonographyguided fine-needle biopsy
Endoscopic ultrasound
Endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration
Histology
Pancreatic neoplasms
Journal
Gut and liver
ISSN: 2005-1212
Titre abrégé: Gut Liver
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101316452
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 11 2020
15 11 2020
Historique:
received:
16
05
2019
revised:
12
08
2019
accepted:
13
08
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2020
medline:
26
8
2021
entrez:
28
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recently, a three-plane symmetric needle with Franseen geometry was developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this retrospective study, tissue acquisition per pass was compared between 22-gauge Franseen FNB and standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Consecutive patients who underwent EUSFNA or EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions between October 2014 and March 2018 were retrospectively studied. The tissue acquisition rate and the diagnostic performance per session, per pass, and at first pass were compared. A total of 663 passes (300 by the FNB needle and 363 by the standard FNA needle) were performed in 154 patients (71 FNB and 83 FNA). The tissue acquisition rate per session and at first pass in the FNB and FNA groups was 100% and 95% (p=0.13) and 87% and 69% (p=0.007), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that among the patients, EUS-FNB (odds ratio, 3.07; p=0.01) was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate. While the tissue acquisition rate reached a plateau after the 4th pass with FNA, it reached a plateau after the 2nd pass with FNB. Among the 129 malignant cases, the histological tissue acquisition rate per session was similar (100% and 94%), but the sensitivity by histology alone per session was higher for FNB than for FNA (93% and 73%, p<0.01). The results of our retrospective analysis indicated that compared with a standard FNA needle, a 22-gauge Franseen FNB needle was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate.
Sections du résumé
Background/Aims
Recently, a three-plane symmetric needle with Franseen geometry was developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this retrospective study, tissue acquisition per pass was compared between 22-gauge Franseen FNB and standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.
Methods
Consecutive patients who underwent EUSFNA or EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions between October 2014 and March 2018 were retrospectively studied. The tissue acquisition rate and the diagnostic performance per session, per pass, and at first pass were compared.
Results
A total of 663 passes (300 by the FNB needle and 363 by the standard FNA needle) were performed in 154 patients (71 FNB and 83 FNA). The tissue acquisition rate per session and at first pass in the FNB and FNA groups was 100% and 95% (p=0.13) and 87% and 69% (p=0.007), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that among the patients, EUS-FNB (odds ratio, 3.07; p=0.01) was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate. While the tissue acquisition rate reached a plateau after the 4th pass with FNA, it reached a plateau after the 2nd pass with FNB. Among the 129 malignant cases, the histological tissue acquisition rate per session was similar (100% and 94%), but the sensitivity by histology alone per session was higher for FNB than for FNA (93% and 73%, p<0.01).
Conclusions
The results of our retrospective analysis indicated that compared with a standard FNA needle, a 22-gauge Franseen FNB needle was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32457276
pii: gnl19171
doi: 10.5009/gnl19171
pmc: PMC7667934
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
817-825Références
Dig Liver Dis. 2018 May;50(5):469-474
pubmed: 29477347
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Jan-Feb;7(1):56-60
pubmed: 29451170
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1210-7
pubmed: 26522372
Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Feb;51(2):184-90
pubmed: 10650262
Dig Endosc. 2017 May;29(3):338-346
pubmed: 27878861
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun - Jul;52(6-7):784-787
pubmed: 28355953
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Apr;63(4):1043-1051
pubmed: 29464585
Gut. 2018 Dec;67(12):2081-2084
pubmed: 28988195
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Sep-Oct;7(5):329-334
pubmed: 28836520
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb 3;2019:8581743
pubmed: 30854353
Pancreatology. 2019 Jan;19(1):191-195
pubmed: 30528644
Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):475-81
pubmed: 15044881
Endoscopy. 2016 Apr;48(4):339-49
pubmed: 26561917
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jun;77(6):909-15
pubmed: 23433596
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jul;15(7):1071-1078.e2
pubmed: 28025154
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Jan-Feb;7(1):34-40
pubmed: 29451167
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Dec;84(6):1034-1039
pubmed: 27018087
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96
pubmed: 21420083
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jan-Feb;8(1):50-57
pubmed: 29786033
Pancreas. 2013 Jan;42(1):20-6
pubmed: 23254913
Clin Endosc. 2018 Nov;51(6):576-583
pubmed: 30001616
Endosc Int Open. 2017 May;5(5):E363-E375
pubmed: 28497108
Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct;27(10):3733-8
pubmed: 23644834
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug;105(8):1739-45
pubmed: 20216532
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1264-70
pubmed: 19243768
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Apr;136(4):447-53
pubmed: 22458907
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Jul;59(7):1578-85
pubmed: 24429514
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1432-1438
pubmed: 29305893
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1429-39
pubmed: 26346868
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):319-31
pubmed: 22248600
Gut Liver. 2019 May 15;13(3):349-355
pubmed: 30600677
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):177-85
pubmed: 25440688