Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastro Unit, Division of Endoscopy, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Bojan Kovacevic MD PhD & Peter Vilmann MD DMSc

  2. Gastro Unit, Pancreatitis Centre East, Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark

    John Gásdal Karstensen MD PhD

  3. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    John Gásdal Karstensen MD PhD & Peter Vilmann MD DMSc

Authors
  1. Bojan Kovacevic MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Gásdal Karstensen MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Vilmann MD DMSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bojan Kovacevic MD PhD.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Bojan Kovacevic declares that he has no conflict of interest. John Gásdal Karstensen declares that he has no conflict of interest. Peter Vilmann declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Author statement

This manuscript has been read and approved by all authors. The requirements for authorship have been met, and each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work. This manuscript has not been submitted nor is being considered for publication elsewhere.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kovacevic, B., Karstensen, J.G. & Vilmann, P. EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB for Pancreatic Lesions: Which Needle When to Use?. Curr Treat Options Gastro 19, 295–307 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-021-00340-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-021-00340-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation