Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug;3(4):343-52.
doi: 10.1177/2050640615577533.

Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

Abdullah Alatawi  1 , Frédéric Beuvon  2 , Sophie Grabar  3 , Sarah Leblanc  1 , Stanislas Chaussade  4 , Benoit Terris  5 , Maximilien Barret  4 , Frédéric Prat  4
Affiliations

Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

Abdullah Alatawi et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using standard needles has a high diagnostic value in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses. Fenestrated needles have been developed to improve the quality of EUS-guided tissue sampling by providing core biopsies (FNB).

Methods: Patients with solid pancreatic masses of >2 cm were prospectively included in our study and randomized to receive EUS sampling, using either a standard 22G FNA or a 22G Procore® FNB needle. The main study endpoint was the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis in more than 90% of cases.

Results: We included 100 patients (male = 63, female = 37; mean age = 68.4 years) in our study. We found that 88% of the lesions were malignant, with a mean size of 32 mm. A sample adequate for diagnosis was obtained in more than 90% of cases after the second needle pass in the FNB group, versus the third needle pass in the FNA group. Slide cellularity and presence of tissue microfragments were significantly higher in the FNB group. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy was 88.4% versus 97.8% for the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB group, respectively, while specificity for both techniques was 100%. No complications were recorded.

Conclusions: Although the accuracy of both needle types for proving malignancy was similar, a lower number of passes was required with the FNB needles to achieve the same contributive sample rate as with the FNA needles. FNB also improved the histopathological quality of specimens, suggesting an overall superiority of FNB sampling.

Keywords: Biopsy; diagnosis; endosonography; fine needle aspiration; histopathology; needle type; pancreatic cancer; ultrasound guided biopsy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
An EUS-FNB sample adequate for histological analysis: The tissue microfragment with intact tissue architecture showed pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS: endoscopic ultrasound; FNB: fine-needle biopsy; Hematoxylin erythrosin and saffron (HES) staining; 20 × magnification.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Variation in histological quality of HES-stained tissue samples at 50× magnification, between (a) a hemorrhagic sample inadequate for tissue analysis and (b) a sample with high cellularity and presence of tissue microfragments. HES: Hematoxylin erythrosin saffron staining.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Probability of obtaining diagnostic material, according to the number of needle passes using EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB needles. EUS: endoscopic ultrasound; FNA: fine-needle aspiration; fine-needle biopsy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hariharan D, Saied A, Kocher HM. Analysis of mortality rates for pancreatic cancer across the world. HPB 2008; 10: 58–62. . - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ngamruengphong S, Li F, Zhou Y, et al. EUS and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: A population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 78–83. - PubMed
    1. Othman MO, Wallace MB. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2012; 41: 179–188. - PubMed
    1. Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, et al. Current status of diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Dig Endosc 2011; 23: S17–21. - PubMed
    1. Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319–331. - PubMed
-