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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |