nach oben

Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology

Erschienen in:

10.03.2021 | Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)

EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB for Pancreatic Lesions: Which Needle When to Use?

verfasst von: Bojan Kovacevic, MD PhD, John Gásdal Karstensen, MD PhD, Peter Vilmann, MD DMSc

Erschienen in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of review

The aim of this review is to present recent evidence on the different needle designs used for endoscopic ultrasound–guided tissue acquisition and further to discuss adequate use of specific needles in patients with pancreatic lesions.

Recent findings

Several high-quality studies have recently been published, demonstrating superiority of tissue core needles compared to aspiration needles. Only a few studies have directly compared different core needles, reporting primacy of crown cut designs over side-bevel needles in terms of histology and microcores. As for cystic lesions, novel advancements include a through-the-needle microbiopsy forceps and genetic markers in cyst fluid, both of which have shown promising results.

Summary

Fine needle biopsy needles procure more histologic-grade tissue compared to aspiration needles and may be preferable in the case of solid pancreatic lesions in an era of precision medicine. However, if the aim of the biopsy procedure is to solely confirm malignancy, FNA needles remain a viable choice.

Gupta R, Amanam I, Chung V. Current and future therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24623.CrossRefPubMed

Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38(2):172–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(92)70385-x.CrossRefPubMed

Lee LS, Nieto J, Watson RR, Hwang AL, Muthusamy VR, Walter L, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial comparing diagnostic yield of cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses. Dig Endosc. 2016;28(4):469–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12594.CrossRefPubMed

Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS, Rastogi A, Collins B, Wang JF, et al. The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(10):1429–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.262.CrossRefPubMed

Kappelle WFW, Van Leerdam ME, Schwartz MP, Bulbul M, Buikhuisen WA, Brink MA, et al. Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: a randomized, multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(5):677–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41395-018-0025-8.CrossRefPubMed

Polkowski M, Jenssen C, Kaye P, Carrara S, Deprez P, Gines A, et al. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017. Endoscopy. 2017;49(10):989–1006. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-119219.CrossRefPubMed

Attam R, Arain MA, Bloechl SJ, Trikudanathan G, Munigala S, Bakman Y, et al. "Wet suction technique (WEST)": a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1401–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.023.CrossRefPubMed

Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V, Eloubeidi MA, Etamad R, Matsuda K, et al. Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(4):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.117764.CrossRefPubMed

Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH, Kim KM, Shin JU, Lee JK, et al. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(5):745–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tarantino I, Di Mitri R, Fabbri C, Pagano N, Barresi L, Granata A, et al. Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial. Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46(6):523–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2014.02.023.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Puri R, Vilmann P, Saftoiu A, Skov BG, Linnemann D, Hassan H, 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(4):499–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365520802647392.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(3):243–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(4):1087–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70164-1.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Songur N, Songur Y, Bircan S, Kapucuoglu N. Comparison of 19- and 22-gauge needles in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in patients with mediastinal masses and lymph nodes. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2011;22(5):472–8. https://doi.org/10.4318/tjg.2011.0322.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS, Eum JB, Moon SH, Park DY, et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(8):1739–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2010.108.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, Dote K, et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24(3):384–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05636.x.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Zhu H, Jiang F, Zhu J, Du Y, Jin Z, Li Z. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2017;29(6):667–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12851.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(2):319–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.049.CrossRefPubMed

19.

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(4):339–49. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393354.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Karsenti D, Palazzo L, Perrot B, Zago J, Lemaistre AI, Cros J, et al. 22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy. Endoscopy. 2020;52(9):747–53. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1160-5485.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kandel P, Nassar A, Gomez V, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Crook JE, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration for genomic profiling and DNA yield in pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Endoscopy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1223-2171.

22.

•• Kurita A, Yasukawa S, Zen Y, Yoshimura K, Ogura T, Ozawa E, et al. Comparison of a 22-gauge Franseen-tip needle with a 20-gauge forward-bevel needle for the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study (COMPAS study). Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(2):373–81e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.012. The first RCT and currently the largest study comparing two FNB designs in patients suspected of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis.CrossRefPubMed

23.

• Oppong KW, Maheshwari P, Nayar MK, Darne A, Parkinson D, Leeds JS, et al. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(12):E1855–E61. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1236-3266. Another, although retrospective study focusing on patients with type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Oppong KW, Bekkali NLH, Leeds JS, Johnson SJ, Nayar MK, Darne A, et al. Fork-tip needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy. 2020;52(6):454–61. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1114-5903.CrossRefPubMed

25.

• Sugimoto M, Irie H, Takagi T, Suzuki R, Konno N, Asama H, et al. Efficacy of EUS-guided FNB using a Franseen needle for tissue acquisition and microsatellite instability evaluation in unresectable pancreatic lesions. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):1094. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07588-5. Retrospective study comparing franseen to FNA of same diameter (22G) and reporting an interesting clinical outcome (MSI evaluation).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Alkhateeb K, Lee BB, Alatassi H, Sanders MA, Omer EM, McClave SA, et al. Comparison between two types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine aspiration biopsy of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal masses. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(3):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24361.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Zeitoun JD, Denis P, Perrot B, Coelho J, et al. Comparison of 20-gauge Procore(R) and 22-gauge Acquire(R) needles for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses: an observational study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019;54(4):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2019.1599418.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Asokkumar R, Yung Ka C, Loh T, Kah Ling L, Gek San T, Ying H, et al. Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7(8):E955–E63. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0903-2565.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Armellini E, Manfrin E, Trisolini E, Andorno S, Ballare M, Bernardoni L, et al. Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019;7(1):96–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640618804443.CrossRefPubMed

30.

• van Riet PA, Larghi A, Attili F, Rindi G, Nguyen NQ, Ruszkiewicz A, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(2):329–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.026. Largest multicenter two-arm RCT comparing forward-bevel needle to FNA (20G vs 25G).CrossRefPubMed

31.

• Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q, Sun B, Deng Z, Shan H, et al. Analysis of fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of pancreatic and abdominal masses: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(8):1314–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010. Large multicenter RCT comparing reverse-bevel needle to FNA.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Tian L, Tang AL, Zhang L, Liu XW, Li JB, Wang F, et al. Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(8):3533–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Hedenstrom P, Demir A, Khodakaram K, Nilsson O, Sadik R. EUS-guided reverse bevel fine-needle biopsy sampling and open tip fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions - a prospective, comparative study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(2):231–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2017.1421704.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Noh DH, Choi K, Gu S, Cho J, Jang KT, Woo YS, et al. Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(1):94–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2017.1390597.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Mukai S, Itoi T, Yamaguchi H, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, Tanaka R, et al. A retrospective histological comparison of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a novel franseen needle and a conventional end-cut type needle. Endosc Ultrasound. 2019;8(1):50–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_11_18.CrossRefPubMed

36.

• Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the Franseen and Fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):1432–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.036. Most recent RCT and head-to-head comparison of franseen and fork-tip needles.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Abdelfatah MM, Grimm IS, Gangarosa LM, Baron TH. Cohort study comparing the diagnostic yields of 2 different EUS fine-needle biopsy needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(2):495–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.033.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, Van Cutsem E, Macarulla T, Hall MJ, et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1903387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, Di Giacomo AM, De Jesus-Acosta A, Delord JP, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02105.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Wang QX, Xiao J, Orange M, Zhang H, Zhu YQ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2015;36(3):1197–209. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430290.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Estrada P, Benson M, Gopal D, Buehler D, Pfau P. Cytology with rapid on-site examination (ROSE) does not improve diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47(11):1184–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24291.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Tanaka M, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, Jang JY, Levy P, Ohtsuka T, et al. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2017;17(5):738–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2017.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

43.

van der Waaij LA, van Dullemen HM, Porte RJ. Cyst fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(3):383–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(05)01581-6.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Beech C, Freedman-Weiss M, Salem R, Jain D, Zhang X. Pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with elevated pre-operative cystic carcinoembryonic antigen level: a histopathologic correlation. Gastroenterol Res. 2019;12(4):185–90. https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1201.CrossRef

45.

Carr RA, Yip-Schneider MT, Simpson RE, Dolejs S, Schneider JG, Wu H, et al. Pancreatic cyst fluid glucose: rapid, inexpensive, and accurate diagnosis of mucinous pancreatic cysts. Surgery. 2018;163(3):600–5.CrossRef

46.

Faias S, Pereira L, Roque R, Chaves P, Torres J, Cravo M, et al. Excellent accuracy of glucose level in cystic fluid for diagnosis of pancreatic mucinous cysts. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65(7):2071–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05936-5.CrossRefPubMed

47.

• Singhi AD, McGrath K, Brand RE, Khalid A, Zeh HJ, Chennat JS, et al. Preoperative next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid is highly accurate in cyst classification and detection of advanced neoplasia. Gut. 2018;67(12):2131–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313586. Currently the largest study on the diagnostic value of genetic markers for differentiation between benign and malignant pancreatic cysts.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Kovacevic B, Karstensen JG, Havre RF, Pham KD, Giovannini M, Dabizzi E, et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided microbiopsy forceps in diagnosing pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicenter feasibility study (with video). Endosc Ultrasound. 2018;7(6):383–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_16_18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.•

Kovacevic B, Klausen P, Rift CV, Toxvaerd A, Grossjohann H, Karstensen JG, et al. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle microbiopsy in patients with pancreatic cysts. Endoscopy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1214-6043. One of the two prospective studies on the performance of the microforceps in patients with pancreatic cysts.

50.

• Yang D, Trindade AJ, Yachimski P, Benias P, Nieto J, Manvar A, et al. Histologic analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided through the needle microforceps biopsies accurately identifies mucinous pancreas cysts. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(8):1587–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.027. Another prospective study examining the usefulness of the microforceps in patients with pancreatic cysts.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Westerveld DR, Ponniah SA, Draganov PV, Yang D. Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided through-the-needle microforceps biopsy versus EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(5):E656–E67. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1119-6543.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Colan-Hernandez J, Sendino O, Loras C, Pardo A, Gornals JB, Concepcion M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not required for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions, based on a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1642–9e1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.025.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Guo J, Sahai AV, Teoh A, Arcidiacono PG, Larghi A, Saftoiu A, et al. An international, multi-institution survey on performing EUS-FNA and fine needle biopsy. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(5):319–28. https://doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_56_20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB for Pancreatic Lesions: Which Needle When to Use?
verfasst von: Bojan Kovacevic, MD PhD
John Gásdal Karstensen, MD PhD
Peter Vilmann, MD DMSc
Publikationsdatum: 10.03.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1092-8472
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-309X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-021-00340-3

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of review

Recent findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Management of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

How to Measure Detection Rate During Colonoscopy: PDR, ADR, SDR, or All Three?

Metabolomics in Advanced Liver Disease

Clinical Management of Oligopolyposis of Unknown Etiology

Recent Progress in Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Cancer (HCC)