Diagnostic yield of small histological cores obtained with a new EUS-guided fine needle biopsy system
- 251 Downloads
As endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques evolve, there is increasing interest in obtaining optimal histological samples to improve diagnostic accuracy. In this study, we aimed to assess the tissue acquisition success rate and test performance characteristics of a novel endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) system.
We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid lesions using the SharkCore fine needle system in a tertiary referral facility. At least two passes were submitted for histology and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated. Comparison standard was based on final surgical pathology or minimum six-month clinical follow-up.
Seventy-nine patients underwent 85 EUS-FNB procedures. Of the 85 histology specimens, 78 (91.7%) were adequate for diagnostic examination (includes six atypical/suspicious for adenocarcinoma). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy with FNB were 87.1, 100, and 90.6%, respectively. Cytology was simultaneously sent in 43 cases with the same needle in addition to histology. Out of the 14 cases that were atypical/suspicious for adenocarcinoma or non-diagnostic on cytology, 11 cases (78.6%) achieved definite diagnoses on histology. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy combining histology and cytology were 90.3, 100, and 92.9%, respectively. No complications were reported after the procedures.
In this initial experience with a new EUS-guided FNB system, obtaining small cores to submit for histological analysis was safe, technically feasible, and highly accurate. Most of the histological cores obtained via FNB yielded a definite diagnosis including in cases with equivocal cytomorphology. Further study is required to confirm these findings.
KeywordsEndosonography Image-guided biopsy Biopsy, Fine-needle Pathology, Surgical
Conception and design: TI and PJB; analysis and interpretation of the data: TI and PJB; drafting of the article: TI, PJK, and PJB; critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: SJH, RM CT, HG, and YH; final approval of the article: TI, RM, SJH, and PJB.
Compliance with ethical standards
Drs. Takuya Ishikawa, Rachid Mohamed, Steven J Heitman, Christian Turbide, Puja R. Kumar, Hidemi Goto, Yoshiki Hirooka, and Paul J. Belletrutti have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
There is no funding for this paper.
- 7.Morishima T, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Yamamura T, Funasaka K, Nakamura M, Miyahara R, Watanabe O, Ishigami M, Shimoyama Y, Nakamura S, Hashimoto S, Goto H, Hirooka Y (2016) Prospective multicenter study on the usefulness of EUS-guided FNA biopsy for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 84(2):241–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Brais RJ, Davies SE, O’Donovan M, Simpson BW, Cook N, Darbonne WC, Chilcott S, Lolkema MP, Neesse A, Lockley M, Corrie PG, Jodrell DI, Praseedom RK, Huguet EL, Jah A, Jamieson NV, de Sauvage FJ, Tuveson DA, Carroll NR (2012) Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trials. Pancreatology 12:8–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, Dote K, Takeyama Y, Das K, Yamao K, Kudo M (2009) 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 24:384–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Saint Paul MC, Sakarovitch C, Wangermez M, Bichard P, Subtil C, Koch S, Grandval P, Gincul R, Karsenti D, Heyries L, Duchmann JC, Bourgaux JF, Levy M, Calament G, Fumex F, Pujol B, Lefort C, Poincloux L, Pagenault M, Bonin EA, Fabre M, Barthet M (2014) Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 46:1063–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar