Abstract
Background: There are very few available data on the novel SharkCore™ needles for EUS-FNB.
Aim: Comparison of the performance of the SharkCore™ needles with the standard EUS-FNA needles for the diagnosis of solid upper GI masses.
Patients and methods: Single-center, retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary referral hospital. Patients were matched 1:1 for the site of the lesion and the presence or absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
Results: A total of 102 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes (3.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.4 ± 1.5; p = .89). Similar results were observed at the subgroup with ROSE (4.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.7 ± 1.5; p = .26). More histological specimens were obtained with the SharkCore™ needles compared to standard needles (59 versus 5%; p < .001). Diagnostic test characteristics were not significantly different (sensitivity: 91.5 versus 85.7; specificity: 100 versus 100%; accuracy: 92.2 versus 85.4% for SharkCore™ versus standard needles, p > .05 in all cases). At multivariable analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes in all patients (p = .23) and in the ROSE subgroup (p = .66). However, the SharkCore™ needle obtained significantly more histological material than the standard needle (odds ratio 66; 95% confidence interval: 11.8, 375.8, p < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (p = .5).
Limitations: Retrospective study, single-center.
Conclusion: The SharkCore needles were similar to standard FNA needles in terms of the number of passes to reach diagnosis, but obtained significantly more histological specimen.
Disclosure statement
L.S.L. has served as Consultant for Medtronic/Covidien. M.J. and W.M.A. have no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.