Endoscopic ultrasound with combined fine needle aspiration plus biopsy improves diagnostic yield in solid pancreatic masses

Abstract

Goals

Our aim was to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus combined fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNA + FNB) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs).

Background

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are established methods to diagnose SPMs. No studies have evaluated the efficacy of combination of both (EUS-FNA + FNB). Our senior author (MRS) hypothesized that combining the two techniques by using a single FNB needle improves diagnostic yield and started combination technique in October 2016.

Study

Patients who underwent EUS for SPMs by MRS during January 2014–September 2019 were included. They were divided into the EUS-FNA group and EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA was performed using a 22 or 25 gauge Expect Slimline needle (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and EUS-FNA + FNB was performed using a single 22 or 25 gauge Shark-core needle (Medtronics, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Our primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic yield in the two groups.

Results

Among 105 patients included, 58 were in the EUS-FNA group and 47 were in the EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA + FNB group had significantly higher diagnostic yield and required fewer needle passes compared to EUS-FNA group, 95.7% vs. 77.6%, p = .01: and 4 vs. 5, p = .002; respectively. Procedural duration was similar in both groups but the combined technique required less number of needles per procedure. There was no difference in adverse events in the two groups.

Conclusion

Our study showed that combined EUS-FNA + FNB had higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA in SPMs along with less number of needle passes and needles required. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

Keywords:

• Endoscopic ultrasound
• fine needle aspiration
• fine needle biopsy
• pancreatic cancer
• diagnostic yield

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).