Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Internal Medicine
Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 22 G versus 20 G procore needles in solid lesions: a pilot study

The Egyptian Journal of Internal Medicine volume 31, pages 266–272 (2019)Cite this article

En

Abstract

Background and aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows tissue acquisition from solid lesions. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to improve diagnostic yield by acquisition of histological core. The impact of the needle type (FNA or FNB) on the diagnostic yield and the technical success needs to be further studied. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and technical success of the 22-G FNA needle with the 20-G procore FNB needle in solid lesions.

Patients and methods

The study was designed as a pilot study conducted on cases with solid mediastinal, pancreatic, and intra-abdominal lesions, and the patients involved were then randomized for tissue sampling using either the standard 22-G FNA needle or the new 20-G procore FNB needle.

Results

In this six-month study, 50 patients including 29 male individuals and 21 female individuals, with a mean age of 57.1±12.3 years (range: 15–80 years) were enrolled. No significant difference was detected between FNA 22 G and FNB 20 G as regards the diagnostic accuracy or the technical success rates. However, there was a significant difference in the number of passes needed to reach diagnosis. The success rate of first pass for FNA 22 G and FNB 20 G was 69 and 92.5%, respectively (P=0.014, 95%CI).

Conclusion

EUS-guided FNA and FNB have comparable diagnostic accuracy for solid lesions. The 20-G FNB needles are easy to handle in anatomically challenging locations and required fewer needle passes to reach diagnosis.

References

  1. Strand DS, Jeffus SK, Sauer BG, Wang AY, Stelow EB, Shami VM. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy needle in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 751–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Weston BR, Bhutani MS. Optimizing diagnostic yield for eus-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: a technical review. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 9: 352–363.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ieni A, Todaro P, Crino SF, Barresi V, Tuccari G. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in pancreaticobiliary carcinomas: diagnostic efficacy of cell-block immunocytochemistry. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2015; 14: 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS, Eum JB, Moon SH, Park do H 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; 105:1739–1745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mesa H, Stelow EB, Stanley MW, Mallery S, Lai R, Bardales RH. Diagnosis of nonprimary pancreatic neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 31: 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkader I et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dwyer J, Pantanowitz L, Ohori NP, Pai RK, Vrbin C, Brand RE, Monaco SE. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124: 110–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Caudill JL, Clain JE, Clayton AC, Halling KC et al. False positive endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology: incidence and risk factors. Gut 2010; 59: 586–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hawes RH. The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound: improved imaging, higher accuracy for fine needle aspiration and the reality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2011; 26: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Navina S, McGrath K, Chennat J, Singh V, Pal T, Zeh H et al. Adequacy assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided, fine-needle aspirations of pancreatic masses for theranostic studies: optimization of current practices is warranted. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 923–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B, Boustiere C, Giovannini M, Pujol B, Dumonceau JM. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 190–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J, Eugenyeva E, Lozano-Leon A, Forteza-Vila J. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K, Aithal G. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 584–591.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R, Seerden TC, Galasso D, Carnuccio A et al. EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 504–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vanbiervliet G, Napoléon B, Saint Paul MC, Sakarovitch C, Wangermez M, Bichard P et al. Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aadam AA, Wani S, Amick A, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Hamerski CM et al. A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E497–E505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mansoura Specialized Medical Hospital, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, 35516

    Ahmed Altonbary MD, Hazem Hakim & Doaa Bakr

  2. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Ahmed El-Shamy

  3. Department of Pathology, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Wagdi Elkashef

Authors
  1. Ahmed Altonbary MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hazem Hakim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doaa Bakr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed El-Shamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wagdi Elkashef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Altonbary MD.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altonbary, A., Hakim, H., Bakr, D. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 22 G versus 20 G procore needles in solid lesions: a pilot study. Egypt J Intern Med 31, 266–272 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4103/ejim.ejim_118_18

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ejim.ejim_118_18

Keywords