Comparison of 20-gauge Procore® and 22-gauge Acquire® needles for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses: an observational study

References

• Fritscher-Ravens A, Topalidis T, Bobrowski C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in focal pancreatic lesions: a prospective intraindividual comparison of two needle assemblies. Endoscopy. 2001;33:484–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G, et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:277–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1386–1391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum IA, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2663–2668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS, et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1739–1745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, et al. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:321–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanbiervliet G, Napoléon B, Saint Paul MC, et al. Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy. 2014;46:1063–1070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy. 2016;48:339–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan MA, Grimm IS, Ali B, et al. A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E363–E375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dähnert WF1, Hoagland MH, Hamper UM, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of abdominal lesions: diagnostic yield for different needle tip configurations. Radiology. 1992;185:263–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swischuk JL, Castaneda F, Patel JC, et al. Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy of the lung: review of 612 lesions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:347–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang EK, Macchia RJ, Gayle B, et al. CT-guided biopsy of indeterminate renal cystic masses (Bosniak 3 and 2F): accuracy and impact on clinical management. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2518–2524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keulers A, Cunha-Cruz V, Bruners P, et al. Bone biopsy needles: mechanical properties, needle design and specimen quality. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2011;183:274–281.
   Google Scholar
• Mair S, Dunbar F, Becker PJ, et al. Fine needle cytology-is aspiration suction necessary? A study of 100 masses in various sites. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:809–813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirnezami R, Nicholson J, Darzi A. Preparing for precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:489–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Hasan MK, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsy using a Franseen needle design: initial assessment. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:338–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doluoglu OG, Yuceturk CN, Eroglu M, et al. Core length: an alternative method for increasing cancer detection rate in patients with prostate cancer. Urol J. 2015;12:2324–2328. 14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cholongitas E, Quaglia A, Samonakis D, et al. Transjugular liver biopsy: how good is it for accurate histological interpretation? Gut. 2006;55:1789–1794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardache M, Soyer P, Boudiaf M, et al. Transjugular liver biopsy with an automated device. Radiology. 1997;204:369–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T, et al. Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study). Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:177–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:504–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandel P, Tranesh G, Nassar A, et al. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:1034–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jovani M, Abidi WM, Lee LS. Novel fork-tip needles versus standard needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid masses of the upper GI tract: a matched cohort study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:784–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Riet PA, Larghi A, Attili F, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(2):329–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sey MS, Al-Haddad M, Imperiale TF, et al. EUS-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal disease: a comparison of diagnostic yield between two core biopsy needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:347–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar