Cargando…

Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study

Background and study aims  Recently, a new Franseen design endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed with the goal of providing more tissue for histology. We compared the tissue adequacy rate and nucleic acid yield of 22G EUS-FNB vs. 22G endoscopic ultrasound-gui...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Asokkumar, Ravishankar, Yung Ka, Chin, Loh, Tracy, Kah Ling, Lim, Gek San, Tan, Ying, Hao, Tan, Damien, Khor, Christopher, Lim, Tony, Soetikno, Roy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6656554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0903-2565
_version_ 1783438652614901760
author Asokkumar, Ravishankar
Yung Ka, Chin
Loh, Tracy
Kah Ling, Lim
Gek San, Tan
Ying, Hao
Tan, Damien
Khor, Christopher
Lim, Tony
Soetikno, Roy
author_facet Asokkumar, Ravishankar
Yung Ka, Chin
Loh, Tracy
Kah Ling, Lim
Gek San, Tan
Ying, Hao
Tan, Damien
Khor, Christopher
Lim, Tony
Soetikno, Roy
author_sort Asokkumar, Ravishankar
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Recently, a new Franseen design endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed with the goal of providing more tissue for histology. We compared the tissue adequacy rate and nucleic acid yield of 22G EUS-FNB vs. 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), in solid gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal lesions. Patients and methods  We conducted a randomized crossover study and recruited 36 patients. We performed three passes for pancreatic lesions and two passes for other lesions, using each needle. We blinded the pathologist to needle assignment. We assessed the diagnostic tissue adequacy rate and compared the total tissue area, diagnostic tissue area, and desmoplastic stroma (DS) area in cases of carcinoma. We also examined the nucleic acid yield of the two needles in pancreatic lesions. Results  The lesions included 20 pancreatic masses (55 %), six gastric subepithelial lesions (17 %), five lymph nodes (14 %) and five other abdominal masses (14 %). Mean ± SD lesion size was 3.8 ± 2.0 cm. The final diagnosis was malignant in 27 lesions (75 %) and benign in nine lesions (25 %). We found EUS-FNB procured significantly more median total tissue area (5.2 mm (2) vs. 1.9 mm (2) , P  < 0.001), diagnostic tissue area (2.2 mm (2) vs. 0.9 mm (2) , P  = 0.029), and DS area (2 mm (2) vs. 0.1 mm (2) , P  = 0.001) in lesions diagnosed as carcinoma (n = 23), as compared to EUS-FNA. In pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNB obtained significantly more nucleic acid than EUS-FNA (median; 4,085 ng vs. 2912 ng, P  = 0.02). There was no difference in the cellblock or rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic yield between the needles. Conclusion  The 22G EUS-FNB provides more histological core tissue and adequate nucleic acid yield compared to 22G EUS-FNA. In this study, the diagnostic performance was similar between the needles
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6656554
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66565542019-08-01 Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study Asokkumar, Ravishankar Yung Ka, Chin Loh, Tracy Kah Ling, Lim Gek San, Tan Ying, Hao Tan, Damien Khor, Christopher Lim, Tony Soetikno, Roy Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Recently, a new Franseen design endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed with the goal of providing more tissue for histology. We compared the tissue adequacy rate and nucleic acid yield of 22G EUS-FNB vs. 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), in solid gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal lesions. Patients and methods  We conducted a randomized crossover study and recruited 36 patients. We performed three passes for pancreatic lesions and two passes for other lesions, using each needle. We blinded the pathologist to needle assignment. We assessed the diagnostic tissue adequacy rate and compared the total tissue area, diagnostic tissue area, and desmoplastic stroma (DS) area in cases of carcinoma. We also examined the nucleic acid yield of the two needles in pancreatic lesions. Results  The lesions included 20 pancreatic masses (55 %), six gastric subepithelial lesions (17 %), five lymph nodes (14 %) and five other abdominal masses (14 %). Mean ± SD lesion size was 3.8 ± 2.0 cm. The final diagnosis was malignant in 27 lesions (75 %) and benign in nine lesions (25 %). We found EUS-FNB procured significantly more median total tissue area (5.2 mm (2) vs. 1.9 mm (2) , P  < 0.001), diagnostic tissue area (2.2 mm (2) vs. 0.9 mm (2) , P  = 0.029), and DS area (2 mm (2) vs. 0.1 mm (2) , P  = 0.001) in lesions diagnosed as carcinoma (n = 23), as compared to EUS-FNA. In pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNB obtained significantly more nucleic acid than EUS-FNA (median; 4,085 ng vs. 2912 ng, P  = 0.02). There was no difference in the cellblock or rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic yield between the needles. Conclusion  The 22G EUS-FNB provides more histological core tissue and adequate nucleic acid yield compared to 22G EUS-FNA. In this study, the diagnostic performance was similar between the needles © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019-08 2019-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6656554/ /pubmed/31367675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0903-2565 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Asokkumar, Ravishankar
Yung Ka, Chin
Loh, Tracy
Kah Ling, Lim
Gek San, Tan
Ying, Hao
Tan, Damien
Khor, Christopher
Lim, Tony
Soetikno, Roy
Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title_full Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title_fullStr Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title_short Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study
title_sort comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (fnb) and fine-needle aspiration (fna): a randomized study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6656554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0903-2565
work_keys_str_mv AT asokkumarravishankar comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT yungkachin comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT lohtracy comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT kahlinglim comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT geksantan comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT yinghao comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT tandamien comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT khorchristopher comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT limtony comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy
AT soetiknoroy comparisonoftissueandmolecularyieldbetweenfineneedlebiopsyfnbandfineneedleaspirationfnaarandomizedstudy