These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study.
    Author: Kandel P, Tranesh G, Nassar A, Bingham R, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Gomez V, Wallace MB.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2016 Dec; 84(6):1034-1039. PubMed ID: 27018087.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]