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.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) can overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided acquisition by identifying microvessels inside inhomogeneous tumours and improving the characterization of these tumours. Despite the initial enthusiasm that oriented needle sampling under CH-EUS guidance could provide better diagnostic yield in pancreatic solid lesions, further studies did not confirm the supplementary values in cases of tissue acquisition guided by CH-EUS. This review details the knowledge based on the available data on contrast-guided procedures. The indications for CH-EUS tissue acquisition include isoechoic EUS lesions with poor visible delineation where CH-EUS can differentiate the lesion vascularisation from the surrounding parenchyma and also the mural nodules within biliopancreatic cystic lesions, which occur in select cases. Additionally, the roles of CH-EUS-guided therapy in patients whose pancreatic fluid collections or bile ducts that have an echogenic content have indications for drainage, and patients who have nonvisualized vessels that need to be highlighted via Doppler EUS are presented. Another indication is represented if there is a need for an immediate assessment of the post-radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, in which case CH-EUS can be used to reveal the incomplete tumour destruction.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing focal liver lesions in patients with a history of multiple primary malignant neoplasms.
UNASSIGNED: Among patients who underwent EUS-TA for focal liver lesions between 2016 and 2022, those with a history of multiple malignant neoplasms were included. A histologically confirmed malignant tumor within the past 5 years before EUS-TA was defined as a history of malignant neoplasm. The primary outcomes were diagnostic ability and adverse events of EUS-TA.
UNASSIGNED: This study included 16 patients (median age, 73 [33-90] years), the median tumor size was 32 (6-51) mm, 14 had a history of double malignant neoplasms, whereas two had triple malignant neoplasms. Malignant neoplasms were detected histologically or cytologically in all cases. Immunohistochemistry was performed in 75% (12/16), and the final diagnosis of EUS-TA was metastatic liver tumor in 12 patients, and primary malignant liver tumor in four patients. The primary site could be identified in 11 of 12 metastatic tumor cases. The diagnostic yield of EUS-TA was 100% (16/16) for differentiating benign and malignant tumors and 94% (15/16) for confirming the histological type including the primary site of metastatic lesions. No adverse events were associated with the procedure.
UNASSIGNED: EUS-TA is a useful diagnostic modality for focal liver lesions in patients with a history of multiple malignant neoplasms, allowing for the differential diagnosis of primary and metastatic tumors and identification of the primary site of metastatic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy is the gold standard for sampling tissue to diagnose pancreatic cancer and autoimmune pancreatitis or to analyze cyst fluid. The most common reported adverse event of fine needle aspiration and/or fine needle biopsy is acute pancreatitis, which is likely induced by the same pathophysiological mechanisms as after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). According to the current European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are administered prior to ERCP as a scientifically proven treatment to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence rate. A single suppository of diclofenac or indomethacin prior to EUS guided tissue acquisition (TA) is harmless in healthy adults. Since it is associated with low costs and, most important, may prevent a dreadsome complication, we strongly recommend the administration of 100 mg diclofenac rectally prior to EUS-TA. We will explain this recommendation in more detail in this review as well as the risk and pathophysiology of post-EUS TA pancreatitis.

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.

The caudate lobe of the liver is located deep within the body and surrounded by major blood vessels, such as inferior vena cava, portal vein, and hepatic veins. Thus, percutaneous biopsy is technically challenging. Herein, we report seven patients with focal liver lesions in the caudate lobe who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA). Their median age was 56 (25-79) years, consisting five males and two females, and the median lesion size was 44 (19-77) mm. Transgastric EUS-TA was performed in all patients. The needles used were 22G and 25G in six patients and one patient, and the median procedure time was 18 (13-30) min. In all patients, adequate specimens were collected, and pathological diagnosis was possible (three intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, two metastatic tumors from pancreatic cancer, one hepatocellular carcinoma, and one focal nodular hyperplasia). No adverse events associated with the procedure were observed. EUS-TA can be the first choice for tissue acquisition of the caudate lobe lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy is increasingly being performed at several centers. It is also being promoted at endoscopy conferences. The currently available literature does not support the routine use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy as results are either inferior or comparable to percutaneous liver biopsy. We discuss the technical limitations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy when compared to percutaneous liver biopsy and the comparative studies in the current review. The routine use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy should be discouraged as it may get less tissue, the complication rate is similar and it is more costly.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events.
METHODS: This is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.
RESULTS: A total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of both solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and in the staging of patients with pancreatic cancer through its use for tissue and fluid sampling. Additionally, in cases of precancerous lesions, EUS-guided therapy can also be provided. This review aims to describe the most recent developments regarding the role of EUS in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic lesions. Moreover, complementary EUS imaging modalities, the role of artificial intelligence, new devices, and modalities for tissue acquisition, and techniques for EUS-guided treatment are discussed.