EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle

A case-control study

Pujan Kandel, Ghassan Tranesh, Aziza Nassar, Russell Bingham, Massimo Raimondo, Timothy A. Woodward, Victoria Gomez, Michael B. Wallace

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles. Results: Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, . P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges. Conclusions: The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 6 2016

Fingerprint

Fine Needle Biopsy
Needles
Case-Control Studies
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Histology
Sharks
Cell Biology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle : A case-control study. / Kandel, Pujan; Tranesh, Ghassan; Nassar, Aziza; Bingham, Russell; Raimondo, Massimo; Woodward, Timothy A.; Gomez, Victoria; Wallace, Michael B.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 06.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kandel, Pujan ; Tranesh, Ghassan ; Nassar, Aziza ; Bingham, Russell ; Raimondo, Massimo ; Woodward, Timothy A. ; Gomez, Victoria ; Wallace, Michael B. / EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle : A case-control study. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2016.
@article{fcdcb56b70f14c568c21c84ab1aa9264,
title = "EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: A case-control study",
abstract = "Background and Aims: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles. Results: Of the 156 patients included in study, 25{\%} patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75{\%} (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59{\%} from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, . P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges. Conclusions: The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.",
author = "Pujan Kandel and Ghassan Tranesh and Aziza Nassar and Russell Bingham and Massimo Raimondo and Woodward, {Timothy A.} and Victoria Gomez and Wallace, {Michael B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1405",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle

T2 - A case-control study

AU - Kandel, Pujan

AU - Tranesh, Ghassan

AU - Nassar, Aziza

AU - Bingham, Russell

AU - Raimondo, Massimo

AU - Woodward, Timothy A.

AU - Gomez, Victoria

AU - Wallace, Michael B.

PY - 2016/1/6

Y1 - 2016/1/6

N2 - Background and Aims: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles. Results: Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, . P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges. Conclusions: The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

AB - Background and Aims: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles. Results: Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, . P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges. Conclusions: The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84966778830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84966778830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1405

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1405

M3 - Article

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

ER -