BACKGROUND: The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) remains uncertain.
METHODS: Our data consist of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB to PC-LB, found through a literature search via PubMed/Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, whereas secondary outcomes were longest and total lengths of tissue specimens, diagnostic accuracy, and number of complete portal tracts (CPTs).
RESULTS: Sample adequacy did not significantly differ between EUS-LB and PC-LB (risk ratio [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-2.38; p = 0.65), with very low evidence quality and inadequate sample size as per trial sequential analysis (TSA). The two techniques were equivalent with respect to diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1; CI: 0.95-1.05; p = 0.88), mean number of complete portal tracts (mean difference: 2.29, -4.08 to 8.66; p = 0.48), and total specimen length (mean difference: -0.51, -20.92 to 19.9; p = 0.96). The mean maximum specimen length was significantly longer in the PC-LB group (mean difference: -3.11, -5.51 to -0.71; p = 0.01), and TSA showed that the required information size was reached.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance although PC-LB provides longer non-fragmented specimens.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound guide fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is the main diagnostic tool for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In most instances, only histology is obtained via FNB, without sending cytological slides. The aim of our study was to assess the additive diagnostic yield of cytology performed through FNB.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with histological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were diagnosed by EUS-FNB.
RESULTS: Overall, 80 patients were included in the study period. The overall concordance between cytology and histology all FNB needles was 78.2%. Notably, cytological assessment improved the diagnostic yield for malignancy by 12.8%. The overall kappa coefficient correlation between histology and cytology was .501, 95% CI 0.361-0.641. However, the kappa correlation for suspicious of malignancy and malignant was excellent of .872, 95% CI 0.733-1, suggesting that cytology is crucial when histology is inconclusive. Further analysis showed that the Acquire and Sharkcore needles outperformed the Procore needle in term of concordance between cytology and histology (kappa correlation of .527, 95% CI 0.331-0.724, .515, 95% CI 0.265-0.764, and .297, 95% CI -0.051-0.646), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Performing cytology specimen when using FNB improves the diagnostic yield in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Pancreatic carcinoma is an aggressive tumour with increasing incidence in both sexes worldwide. Early detection is, therefore, essential for patient management. A recent advancement involves the utilization of larger, thicker gauge needles, which enable the collection of core-type biopsies (FNB). Here, we investigated the role of fine needle aspiration and cytopathology in the diagnostic workflow of pancreatic lesions. A search query was designed to search for articles in the PubMed database comparing FNA and FNB for biopsy of pancreatic lesions, and detailed data were extracted from selected studies. Statistical analyses were performed using the R package meta version 6.2. Twenty-one studies made the final cut for data extraction. Overall, median age was 64.3 years (±6.1; 47.6-71.5), male: female proportion 53.9 (±11.3; 27.6-67.4), lesion size 3.1 cm (±0.5; 1.9-4.2 cm) and percentage of malignant cases 78.3% (±26.8; 2.1-100). FNA and FNB diagnostic yield was 85.8% (±10.3; 70.0-100.0) and 89.2% (±7.7; 70.0-98.6), respectively. Average accuracy was 89.5% (±11.7; 63.0-100.0) for FNA and 90.8% (±7.1; 77.0-100.0) for FNB. Adverse effects rate was 1.0% (±1.3; 0-4.3) for FNA and 2.2% (±4.4; 0-16.1) for FNB. None of the selected variables had a significant statistical difference between both methods. FNA and FNB perform similarly for diagnostic material acquisition in pancreatic lesions. The best outcome comes from the association of both techniques, emphasizing the value of combining cytological and histological morphology for the most accurate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA, -FNB) are the mainstay for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Traditionally, FNA was performed for obtaining cytology and also histology if available from the puncture. Since their advent, however, FNB needles have been intended mainly to obtain core biopsies for histological specimens.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the yield of cytology obtained via both FNA and FNB needles.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including all patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma obtained via EUS-FNA/FNB needles.
RESULTS: Overall, 227 patients were included. Of them, 85 patients underwent FNB, versus 142 patients who had FNA. The average age in the FNB group was 70.46 ± 11.29 years, versus 71.44 ± 11.80 in the FNA group, P = 0.57. Notably, cytological analysis diagnosed malignancy equally in both groups (69.4% in the FNB group, vs. 65.5% in the FNA group). The compatibility rate of cytology with histology was 76.5% in the FNB group, versus 76.1% in the FNA group (P = 0.69). The agreement level between cytology obtained by FNA and FNB, versus histology obtained by both needles, was moderate (kappa = 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.57). Similarly, the agreement level between cytology and histology in the FNB group was moderate as well (kappa = 0.5, 95% CI 0.36-0.64).
CONCLUSIONS: Cytological assessment yielded an equal performance as compared to histological assessment with both needles. We recommend obtaining cytology specimens in pancreatic solid lesion puncture by FNB needle.

There is a paucity of evidence regarding whether biliary stents influence endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using either fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), among patients with head of pancreas (HOP) lesions. We aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling in patients with or without bile duct stents. A total of seven studies with 2458 patients were included. The main aim was to assess overall pooled diagnostic accuracy. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We found that pooled accuracy was 85.4% (CI 78.8-91.9) and 88.1% (CI 83.3-92.9) in patients with and without stents, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two (OR 0.74; p = 0.07). Furthermore, patients with metal stents demonstrated a significant difference (OR 0.54, 0.17-0.97; p = 0.05), which was not seen with plastic stents. EUS-FNB showed poorer diagnostic accuracy with concurrent biliary stenting (OR 0.64, 0.43-0.95; p = 0.03); however, the same was not observed with EUS-FNA. Compared to plastic stents, metal biliary stenting further impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for pancreatic head lesions. There was no difference in the rate of procedure-related adverse events between the stent and no-stent groups.

Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of tissue sampling techniques for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.
Rates of sample adequacy, blood contamination, and tissue integrity using fine-needle biopsy sampling needles were evaluated. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed among the slow-pull, dry-suction, modified wet-suction, or no-suction techniques. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Overall, 9 randomized controlled trials (756 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, the no-suction technique was significantly inferior to the other techniques (RR, .85 [95% CI, .78-.92] vs slow pull; RR, .85 [95% CI, .78-.92] vs dry suction; RR, .83 [95% CI, .76-.90] vs modified wet suction) in terms of sample adequacy. Consequently, modified wet suction was shown to be the best technique (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .90), with the no-suction technique showing poorer performance in terms of sample adequacy (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .14). Dry suction was associated with significantly higher rates of blood contamination as compared with the slow-pull technique (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.80), whereas no suction led to less blood contamination of samples in comparison with other techniques (RR, .71 [95% CI, .52-.97] vs slow pull; RR, .49 [95% CI, .36-.66] vs dry suction; RR, .57 [95% CI, .40-.81] vs modified wet suction). The modified wet-suction technique significantly outperformed dry suction in terms of tissue integrity of the sample (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75).
Modified wet suction seemed to provide high rates of integrity and adequate samples, albeit with high blood contamination. The no-suction technique performed significantly worse than other sampling strategies.

There is limited evidence on the incidence of needle tract seeding (NTS) in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) tissue acquisition (TA) of pancreatic lesions. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the incidence of NTS after EUS-TA. With a search of the literature up until April 2022, we identified 10 studies (13,238 patients) assessing NTS incidences in patients undergoing EUS-TA. The primary outcome was NTS incidence. The secondary outcome was a comparison in terms of peritoneal carcinomatosis incidence between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients. Results were expressed as pooled rates or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The pooled rate of NTS was 0.3% (95% CI 0.2-0.4%), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the type of sampled lesion confirmed this finding both in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (0.4%, 0.2-0.6%) and in patients with cystic pancreatic lesions (0.3%, 0.1-0.5%). No difference in terms of metachronous peritoneal dissemination was observed between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients (OR 1.02, 0.72-1.46; p = 0.31), with evidence of low heterogeneity (I2 = 16%). Rates of NTS after EUS-TA are very low; therefore, EUS-TA could be safely performed in a pre-operative setting.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the procedure of choice to obtain samples from pancreatic lesions. However, it still has limitations affecting its diagnostic yield. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to allow acquisition of histological core. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic yield of the Echotip 22Gauge FNA needle with the 22Gauge acquire FNB needle in pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions.
METHODS: This prospective study was carried out on 100 cases of pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions referred to El-Ebrashi unit of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, internal medicine department, Kasr Al-Aini hospital. The patients included were then randomized for sampling using either the standard Echotip 22Gauge FNA needle or 22Gauge acquire FNB needle.
RESULTS: Patients were 57 males and 43 females with a mean age of 58±15 years. Seventy-eight patients had pancreatic lesions, while twenty-two patients had non-pancreatic lesions. Half of the patients (50 cases) underwent EUS-FNA, and the other half (50 cases) underwent EUS-FNB. The presence of adequate tissue core was significantly higher in the FNB group. In contrast, smear cellularity was not significantly different between both groups. FNB had more sensitivity and accuracy depending on cell block/tissue core examination only for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. Blood contamination was higher in cell blocks of the FNA group. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the combined cytologic and histologic evaluation were 100%. Based on smear only or tissue only, the specificity was 100%, but the sensitivity and accuracy were decreased in both techniques. No complications were reported in both techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA and FNB are safe with comparable diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions. FNB improved the histopathological quality of specimens with little blood contamination. Depending on tissue examination only in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, FNB had more sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy.

A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy.
Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events.
Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001).
EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.