Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of specimens from solid lesions acquired during EUS-FNB: multicenter study and comparison between needle gauges

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The standard method for obtaining samples during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is fine-needle aspiration (FNA), the accuracy of which can be affected by the presence of a cytopathologist in endoscopy room (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]). With the introduction of fine-needle biopsy (FNB), macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of a acquired specimen has been proposed. Only a few studies have evaluated the role of MOSE and in all except one, a 19G needle was used. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of MOSE with different needle sizes and the secondary aim was to identify factors influencing the yield of MOSE.

Patients and methods Data from patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid lesions, with MOSE evaluation of the specimen, were collected in six endoscopic referral centers.

Results A total of 378 patients (145 F and 233 M) were enrolled. Needles sizes used during the procedures were 20G (42 %), 22G (45 %), and 25G (13 %). The median number of needle passes was two (IQR 2–3). The overall diagnostic yield of MOSE was of 90 % (confidence interval [CI] 86 %–92 %). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, variables independently associated with the diagnostic yield of MOSE were a larger needle diameter (20G vs. 25G, OR 11.64, 95 %CI 3.5–38.71; 22G vs. 25G, OR 6.20, 95 %CI 2.41–15.90) and three of more needle passes (OR 3.39, 95 %CI 1.38–8.31).

Conclusions MOSE showed high diagnostic yield and accuracy. Its yield was further increased if performed with a large size FNB needles and more than two passes.

Publication History

Received: 18 December 2020

Accepted: 04 February 2021

Article published online:
27 May 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA. et al. The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 45: 387-393
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi MA. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary cancer. Surg Clin N Am 2019; 90: 251-263
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Dewitt J, Devereaux BM, Lehman GA. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 717-725
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Chhieng DC, Jhala D, Jhala N. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a study of 103 cases. Cancer. Cancer Cytopathol 2003; 96: 232-239
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Ngamruengphong S, Li F, Zhou Y. et al. EUS and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 78-83
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Othman MO, Wallace MB. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2012; 41: 179-188
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Attila T, Aidin Ö. Lesion size determines diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with onsite cytopathologic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Turk J Gastroenterol 2018; 29: 436-441
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kappelle WFW, Van Leerdam ME, Schwartz MP. et al. Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 677-685
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Fabbri C, Fuccio L, Fornelli A. et al. The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 225-230
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Lisotti A, Frazzoni L, Fuccio L. et al. Repeated EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1234-1241
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Mangiavillano B, Sosa-Valenca L, Deprez P. et al. Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E1315-E1320
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Oh D, Seo DW, Hong SM. et al. The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 342-347
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Hikichi T, Irisawa A, Bhutani MS. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses with rapid on-site cytological evaluation by endosonographers without attendance of cytopathologists. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 322-328
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 van Riet PA, Erler NS, Bruno MJ. et al. Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2020; DOI: 10.1055/a-1206-5552. (Online ahead of print.)
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Crinò SF, Manfrin E, Scarpa A. et al. EUS-FNB with or without on-site evaluation for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (FROSENOR): Protocol for a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 901-906
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Han P, Che D, Pallav K. et al. Models of the cutting edge geometry of medical needles with applications to needle design. Int J Mech Sci 2012; 65: 157-167
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Chong CCN, Lakhtakia S, Nguyen N. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 856-863
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Leung KiEL, Lemaistre AI, Fumex F. et al. Macroscopic onsite evaluation using endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy as an alternative to rapid onsite evaluation. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E189-E194
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J. et al. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 445-450
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Park SW, Lee SS, Song TJ. et al. The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35: 508-515
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar