Download PDF
Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(09): E974-E979
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-112581
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study

Christopher J. DiMaio
1   Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Jennifer M. Kolb
1   Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Petros C. Benias
2   Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Hiral Shah
3   Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Shashin Shah
3   Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Oleh Haluszka
4   Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Jennifer Maranki
4   Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Kaveh Sharzehi
4   Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Eric Lam
5   University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
,
Stuart R. Gordon
6   Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States
,
Sarah M. Hyder
6   Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States
,
Pavlos Z. Kaimakliotis
7   Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States
,
Satya B. Allaparthi
7   Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States
,
Frank G. Gress
8   NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Amrita Sethi
8   NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Ashish R. Shah
8   NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Jose Nieto
9   Borland-Groover Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States
,
Vivek Kaul
10   University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Shivangi Kothari
10   University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Truptesh H. Kothari
10   University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Sammy Ho
11   Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, United States
,
Manhal J. Izzy
11   Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, United States
,
Neil R. Sharma
12   Parkview Health System, Wayne, Indiana, United States
,
Rabindra R. Watson
13   David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
V. Raman Muthusamy
13   David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Douglas K. Pleskow
14   Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Tyler M. Berzin
14   Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Mandeep Sawhney
14   Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Emad Aljahdi
14   Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Marvin Ryou
15   Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Clarence K. Wong
16   University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Parantap Gupta
17   Crystal Run Healthcare, Middletown, New York, United States
,
Dennis Yang
1   Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Susana Gonzalez
1   Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Douglas G. Adler
18   University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 14 December 2015

accepted after revision 05 July 2016

Publication Date:
30 August 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2016; 48(10): 957-957
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-114607

Background and aims: The ability to safely and effectively obtain sufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance remains a challenge. Novel designs in EUS needles may provide for improved ability to obtain such core biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of core biopsy specimens obtained using a novel EUS needle specifically designed to obtain core biopsies.

Patients and methods: Multicenter retrospective review of all EUS-guided fine-needle biopsies obtained using a novel biopsy needle (SharkCore FNB needle, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland). Data regarding patient demographics, lesion type/location, technical parameters, and diagnostic yield was obtained.

Results: A total of 250 lesions were biopsied in 226 patients (Median age 66 years; 113 (50 %) male). Median size of all lesions (mm): 26 (2 – 150). Overall, a cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 81 % specimens with a median number of 3 passes. When rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) was used, cytologic diagnostic yield was 126/149 (85 %) with a median number of 3 passes; without ROSE, cytologic diagnostic yield was 31/45 (69 %, P = 0.03) with a median number of 3 passes. Overall, a pathologic diagnosis was rendered in 130/147 (88 %) specimens with a median number of 2 passes. Pathologic diagnostic yield for specific lesion types: pancreas 70/81 (86 %), subepithelial lesion 13/15 (87 %), lymph node 26/28 (93 %). Ten patients (10/226, 4 %) experienced adverse events: 4 acute pancreatitis, 5 pain, 1 fever/cholangitis.

Conclusions: Initial experience with a novel EUS core biopsy needle demonstrates excellent pathologic diagnostic yield with a minimum number of passes.

 

  • References

  • 1 Itoi T, Takei K, Sofuni A et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of p53 and MIB-1 in tissue specimens obtained from endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Oncol Rep 2005; 13: 229-234
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brais RJ, Davies SE, O’Donovan M et al. Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trials. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 8-15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN et al. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 185-190
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Wittmann J, Kocjan G, Sgouros SN et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 27-33
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Aithal GP, Anagnostopoulos GK, Tam W et al. EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of “dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with “sequential sampling” (Truct biopsy and then FNA as required). Endoscopy 2007; 39: 725-730
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Guldhammer Skov B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 117-125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 384-390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Polkowski M, Gerke W, Jarosz D et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut [corrected] biopsy in patients with gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 329-334
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K et al. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 584-591
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Wahnschaffe U, Ullrich R, Mayerle J et al. EUS-guided Trucut needle biopsies as first-line diagnostic method for patients with intestinal or extraintestinal mass lesions. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 2351-2355
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gerke H, Rizk MK, Vanderheyden AD et al. Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction. Cytopathology 2010; 21: 44-51
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 DeWitt J, Emerson RE, Sherman S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 2192-2202
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW et al. Feasibility and yield of novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3733-3738
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 792-798
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallet group study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1056-1062
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Mavrogenis G, Weynand B, Sibille A et al. 25-gauge histology needle versus 22-gauge cytology needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions and iglelymphadenopathy. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E63-E68
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Strand DS, Jeffus SK, Sauer BG et al. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy needle in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 751-758
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Paul MCS 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut 2000; 46: 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye CE et al. EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using high negative pressure suction for the evaluation of solid masses: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 768-774
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Yasuda I, Tsurumi H, Omar S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 919-924
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 336-343
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Eckardt AJ, Adler A, Gomes EM et al. Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1135-1144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Al-Haddad MA, Aggarwal A, Arnan A. EUS-Guided Core Biopsy with a novel 19-Gauge Flexible Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) Device: multicenter experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB403-AB404
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Philipper M, Hollerbach S, Gabbert HE et al. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and surgical histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 300-305
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Sendino O, Sole M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 292-299
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Yoshida S, Yamashita K, Yokozawa M et al. Diagnostic findings of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: proposal of a combined cytology with newly defined features and histology diagnosis. Pathol Int 2009; 59: 712-719
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Akahoshi K, Sumida Y, Matsui N et al. Preoperative diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 2077-2082
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Ando N, Goto H, Niwa Y et al. The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of intramural and extraintestinal mass lesions: diagnostic accuracy, complication assessment, and impact on management. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 984-989
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106 (09) 1705-1710
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE et al. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1289-1294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Ecka RS, Sharma M. Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 1075-1080
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Early DS, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V et al. Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839-843
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 283-290
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar