Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 10, pp 2982–2991 | Cite as

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Newly Designed 21-Gauge and Standard 22-Gauge Aspiration Needles in Patients with Solid Pancreatic Masses

  • Kosuke MinagaEmail author
  • Tomoe Yoshikawa
  • Yukitaka Yamashita
  • Hiroko Akamatsu
  • Maiko Ikenouchi
  • Tatsuya Ishii
  • Hisakazu Matsumoto
  • Hiroyoshi Iwagami
  • Yasuki Nakatani
  • Keiichi Hatamaru
  • Mamoru Takenaka
  • Takuji Akamatsu
  • Yoshito Uenoyama
  • Tomohiro Watanabe
  • Kazuo Ono
  • Yasutaka Chiba
  • Masatoshi Kudo
Original Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS–FNA) has been widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors, the ability to obtain adequate pancreatic tumor tissue needs to be improved.

Aims

This study was performed to compare a newly designed 21-gauge needle (EUS Sonopsy CY; Hakko Medical, Nagano, Japan) and a standard 22-gauge needle for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS–FNA with either the EUS Sonopsy CY or the 22-gauge needle from June 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled. The primary outcome was comparison of the diagnostic yield of the FNA samples. The secondary outcomes were comparison of technical success, diagnostic ability for malignancy, and complications.

Results

A total of 93 patients (40.9% female; mean age, 70.1 years) underwent EUS–FNA with the EUS Sonopsy CY (n = 47) or the standard 22-gauge needle (n = 46). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and the overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was similar between the groups (100% in the EUS Sonopsy CY group vs. 95.7% in the 22-gauge needle group, P = 0.242). Nevertheless, the EUS Sonopsy CY resulted in significantly higher scores for cellularity (P = 0.006) and lower scores for blood contamination (P < 0.001). The procedure-related complication rate was comparable between the groups (P = 0.148).

Conclusions

The EUS Sonopsy CY provided higher-quality specimens for histological evaluation in terms of both sample cellularity and blood contamination for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

Trial registration

The study was registered in a clinical trial registry, No. UMIN000032598

Keywords

Endoscopic ultrasound EUS EUS–FNA Fine needle aspiration Pancreatic mass 

Notes

Author’s contribution

YY, MK, and UY designed the research; IM, IT, IH, NY, and AT collected the data and contributed to data analysis and interpretation; YY, UY, HK, MK, and MH performed EUS and EUS-guided FNA. AH and OK performed the pathologic evaluation; TM and CY contributed to the statistical analysis; MK, YT, and YY wrote the paper. WT critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. KM contributed to study conception and supervised the study. All authors discussed the results on article and contributed to final approval.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Minaga K., Yoshikawa T., Yamashita Y., Akamatsu H., Ikenouchi M., Ishii T., Matsumoto H., Iwagami H., Nakatani Y., Hatamaru K., Takenaka M., Akamatsu T., Uenoyama Y., Watanabe T., Ono K., and Chiba Y. have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose. Kudo M. discloses grants from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharma, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, MSD, AbbVie INC., Medico’s Hirata INC., Astellas Pharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and advisory consulting for Kowa Pharmaceutical, MSD, Bayer Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Eisai Pharma.

Supplementary material

10620_2019_5624_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumors, 8th ed.; Hoboken, Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G, et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut. 2000;46:244–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2011;43:897–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;75:319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen G, Liu S, Zhao Y, Dai M, Zhang T. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2013;13:298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, Eloubeidi MA. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? a meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas. 2013;42:20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banafea O, Mghanga FP, Zhao J, Zhao R, Zhu L. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16:108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suen KC. Guidelines and standards: help or hindrance? Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:172–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G, et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Caudill JL, et al. False positive endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology: incidence and risk factors. Gut. 2010;59:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner BG, Cizginer S, Agarwal D, Yang J, Pitman MB, Brugge WR. Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration (EUS–FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1705–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ, et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:1578–1585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-3019-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jani BS, Rzouq F, Saligram S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: a systematic review of technical and procedural variables. N Am J Med Sci. 2016;8:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhatia V, Varadarajulu S. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: how to achieve excellence. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    James TW, Baron TH. A comprehensive review of endoscopic ultrasound core biopsy needles. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15:127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J, Trevino JM, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endoscopy. 2013;45:445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN, Rotterdam H, Lightdale CJ, Stevens PD. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, 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;24:384–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, et al. Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3733–3738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK, et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel-group study. Endoscopy. 2014;46:1056–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamata K, Kitano M, Yasukawa S, et al. Histologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses using 25-gauge endoscopic ultrasound needles with and without a core trap: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2016;48:632–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nayar MK, Paranandi B, Dawwas MF, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Mukai T, et al. A 19-gauge histology needle versus a 19-gauge standard needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid lesions: a multicenter randomized comparison study (GREATER Study). Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:1043–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-4913-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nishioka N, Ogura T, Kurisu Y, et al. Prospective histological evaluation of a 20G core trap with a forward-cutting bevel needle for EUS–FNA of pancreatic lesions. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:4125–4131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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;48:339–349.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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;87:1432–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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;87:495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Attili F, Rimbaş M, Fantin A, et al. Performance of a new histology needle for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy: a retrospective multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50:469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naveed M, Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, et al. A multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018;7:34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee KH, Kim EY, Cho J, et al. Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0189347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minaga K, Takenaka M, Katanuma A, et al. Needle tract seeding: an overlooked rare complication of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Oncology. 2017;93:107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyJapanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical CenterWakayamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of MedicineKindai UniversityOsaka-SayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of PathologyJapanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical CenterWakayamaJapan
  4. 4.Clinical Research CenterKindai University HospitalOsaka-SayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations