UNASSIGNED: The superiority of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) over fine-needle aspiration (FNA) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of FNB and FNA in immunohistochemistry (IHC)-required lesions, including, type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), neuroendocrine tumor (NET), mesenchymal tumor, and lymphoma.
UNASSIGNED: In this multicenter study, specimens from all eligible patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA with these specific lesions were prospectively evaluated. Demographics, adequacy of specimens for IHC, diagnostic accuracy, and integrity of tissue were analyzed. Subgroup analysis and multivariate logistic regression were also performed to control confounders.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 439 patients were included for analysis. Most lesion types were type 1 AIP (41.69%), followed by NET, mesenchymal tumor, and lymphoma. FNB yielded specimens with better adequacy for IHC (82.41% vs. 66.67%, P < 0.001) and higher diagnostic accuracy (74.37% vs. 55.42%, P < 0.001). The superiority of FNB over FNA in adequacy for IHC (odds ratio, 2.786 [1.515-5.291]) and diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio, 2.793 [1.645-4.808]) remained significant after control of confounders including needle size, lesion site, lesion size, and endoscopists. In subgroup analysis, FNB showed higher diagnostic accuracy in AIP and mesenchymal tumor, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in NET and lymphoma.
UNASSIGNED: FNB was superior to FNA needles in obtaining tissues with better adequacy and integrity. These results suggest that FNB should be considered a first-line modality in the diagnosis of IHC-required lesions, especially AIP and mesenchymal tumor. However, a randomized controlled trial with larger sample size is needed to further confirm our findings.

OBJECTIVE: This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).
METHODS: The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.