PDF herunterladen
Endoscopy 2017; 49(10): 989-1006
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-119219
Guideline
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017

Marcin Polkowski
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
2   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The M. Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Warsaw, Poland
,
Christian Jenssen
3   Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/Wriezen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Brandenburg, Germany
,
Philip Kaye
4   Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, UK
,
Silvia Carrara
5   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
,
Pierre Deprez
6   Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
,
Angels Gines
7   Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, ICMDM, IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
,
Gloria Fernández-Esparrach
7   Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, ICMDM, IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
,
Pierre Eisendrath
8   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme & Hôpital Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium
,
Guruprasad P. Aithal
4   Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, UK
,
Paolo Arcidiacono
9   Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
,
Marc Barthet
10   Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital NORD AP-HM, Aix-Marseille-Université, Marseille, France
,
Pedro Bastos
11   Gastroenterology Department Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Adele Fornelli
12   Anatomic Pathology Unit, AUSL of Bologna, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy
,
Bertrand Napoleon
13   Department of Gastroenterology, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Private Hospital Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France
,
Julio Iglesias-Garcia
14   Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
,
Andrada Seicean
15   Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
Alberto Larghi
16   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
,
Cesare Hassan
16   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
,
Jeanin E. van Hooft
17   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Jean-Marc Dumonceau
18   Gedyt Endoscopy Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
12. September 2017 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

RECOMMENDATIONS

For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

Appendix e1, e2 and Supplementary material Table s1 – s14

 

  • References

  • 1 Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B. et al. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 190-206
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Dumonceau JM, Deprez PH, Jenssen C. et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated January 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 695-714
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA. et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-394
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD. et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 719-725
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD. et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation – determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 726-735
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dumonceau JM, Hassan C, Riphaus A. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline Development Policy. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 626-629
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R. et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819-822
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Othman MO, Abdelfatah MM, Padilla O. et al. The cellularity yield of three different 22-gauge endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration needles. Diagn Cytopathol 2017; 45: 426-432
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lee BS, Cho CM, Jung MK. et al. Comparison of histologic core portions acquired from a core biopsy needle and a conventional needle in solid mass lesions: a prospective randomized trial. Gut Liver 2017; 11: 559-566
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Han JP, Lee TH, Hong SJ. et al. EUS-guided FNA and FNB after on-site cytological evaluation in gastric subepithelial tumors. J Dig Dis 2016; 17: 582-587
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sterlacci W, Sioulas AD, Veits L. et al. 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 8820-8830
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Aadam AA, Wani S, Amick A. et al. A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E497-E505
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kamata K, Kitano M, Yasukawa S. et al. Histologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses using 25-gauge endoscopic ultrasound needles with and without a core trap: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 632-638
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S. et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 343-352
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 16 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 lymphadenopathy. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E63-E68
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 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 parallel-group study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1056-1062
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 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 ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 DeWitt J, Cho CM, Lin J. et al. Comparison of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using two different 19-gauge core biopsy needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and blinded study. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E471-E478
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ang TL, Kwek AB, Seo DW. et al. A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E329-E333
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Carrara S, Anderloni A, Jovani M. et al. A prospective randomized study comparing 25-G and 22-G needles of a new platform for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid masses. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 49-54
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Elwassief A, Paquin SC. et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Lee JK, Lee KT, Choi ER. et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 752-757
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Vilmann P, Saftoiu A, Hollerbach S. et al. Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the performance of 22 gauge versus 25 gauge EUS-FNA needles in solid masses. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 877-883
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F. et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 709-715
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 647-652
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS. et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1093-1097
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA. et al. Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 2274-2281
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Park SW, Chung MJ, Lee SH. et al. Prospective study for comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles in solid pancreatic masses. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154401
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Tarantino I, Di Mitri R, Fabbri C. et al. Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 523-526
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH. et al. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Puri R, Vilmann P, Saftoiu A. et al. Randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle sampling with or without suction for better cytological diagnosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 499-504
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V. et al. Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 441-447
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Kudo T, Kawakami H, Hayashi T. et al. High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1030-1037 e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Attam R, Arain MA, Bloechl SJ. et al. “Wet suction technique (WEST)”: a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1401-1407
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Aadam AA, Oh YS, Shidham VB. et al. Eliminating the residual negative pressure in the endoscopic ultrasound aspirating needle enhances cytology yield of pancreas masses. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 890-899
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Abe Y, Kawakami H, Oba K. et al. Effect of a stylet on a histological specimen in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 22-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 837-844 e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Nijhawan S, Singh B, Kumar A. et al. Randomized controlled trial of comparison of the adequacy, and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet in Indian patients: A prospective single blind study. J Dig Endosc 2014; 5: 149-153
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Wani S, Early D, Kunkel J. et al. Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 328-335
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Rastogi A, Wani S, Gupta N. et al. A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of EUS-guided FNA with and without a stylet. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 58-64
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Hikichi T. et al. Conventional versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized trial. Pancreatology 2015; 15: 538-541
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS. et al. The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1429-1439
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Lee LS, Nieto J, Watson RR. et al. Randomized noninferiority trial comparing diagnostic yield of cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc 2015; 28: 469-475
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Lee JK, Choi ER, Jang TH. et al. A prospective comparison of liquid-based cytology and traditional smear cytology in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Acta Cytol 2011; 55: 401-407
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 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 ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Oh HC, Kang H, Lee JY. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 22/25-gauge core needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling: systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Intern Med 2016; 31: 1073-1083
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Facciorusso A, Stasi E, Di Maso M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 gauge needles: A meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; (Epub ahead of print)
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Xu MM, Jia HY, Yan LL. et al. Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e5802
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A. et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 86-92
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 55 Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP. et al. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1026-1034
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Kim JH, Park SW, Kim MK. et al. Meta-analysis for cyto-pathological outcomes in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration with and without the stylet. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 2175-2184
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 57 Hebert-Magee S, Bae S, Varadarajulu S. et al. The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 159-171
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 58 Matynia AP, Schmidt RL, Barraza G. et al. Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 29: 697-705
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 59 Kong F, Zhu J, Kong X. et al. Rapid on-site evaluation does not improve endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration adequacy in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0163056
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 60 Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L. et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319-331
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 61 Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C. et al. Applying Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 760-768
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 62 Mounzer R, Yen R, Marshall C. et al. Interobserver agreement among cytopathologists in the evaluation of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology specimens. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E812-E819
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 63 Adler DG, Witt B, Chadwick B. et al. Pathologic evaluation of a new endoscopic ultrasound needle designed to obtain core tissue samples: A pilot study. Endosc Ultrasound 2016; 5: 178-183
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 64 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 65 DiMaio CJ, Kolb JM, Benias PC. et al. Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E974-E979
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 66 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 67 Nayar MK, Paranandi B, Dawwas MF. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1017-1024
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 68 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 69 El Chafic AH, Loren D, Siddiqui A. et al. Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 510-515
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 70 Rodrigues-Pinto E, Jalaj S, Grimm IS. et al. Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling with a new core needle on the need for onsite cytopathologic assessment: a preliminary study. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 1040-1046
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 71 Schulman AR, Thompson CC, Odze R. et al. Optimizing EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: comprehensive assessment of needle types and tissue acquisition techniques. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 419-426
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 72 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ. et al. A pilot study of EUS-guided through-the-needle forceps biopsy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 158-162
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 73 Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA. et al. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 445-448
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 74 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Kurihara T. et al. Experimental endoscopy: objective evaluation of EUS needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 509-516
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 75 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A. et al. Evaluation of 19-gauge endoscopic ultrasonography aspiration needles using various echoendoscopes. Endosc Int Open 2013; 1: 24-30
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 76 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 77 Songur N, Songur Y, Bircan S. et al. Comparison of 19- and 22-gauge needles in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in patients with mediastinal masses and lymph nodes. Turk J Gastroenterol 2011; 22: 472-478
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 78 Ramesh J, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. et al. Randomized trial comparing the flexible 19G and 25G needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Pancreas 2015; 44: 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 79 Retraction. Randomized trial comparing the flexible 19G and 25G needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Pancreas 2016; 45: 160
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 80 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 81 Iglesias-Garcia J, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J. et al. Evaluation of the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of the histology samples obtained with a newly designed 19-gauge EUS histology needle. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2014; 106: 6-14
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 82 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 83 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A. et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189-1196
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 84 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 ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 85 Larghi A, Fuccio L, Chiarello G. et al. Fine-needle tissue acquisition from subepithelial lesions using a forward-viewing linear echoendoscope. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 39-45
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 86 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW. et al. Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3733-3738
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 87 Paik WH, Park Y, Park do H. et al. Prospective evaluation of new 22 gauge endoscopic ultrasound core needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique for intra-abdominal solid masses. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 88 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB. et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 909-915
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 89 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Maimone A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 1586-1590
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 90 Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P. et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (long version). Ultraschall Med 2016; 37: E33-E76
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 91 Villa NA, Berzosa M, Wallace MB. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: The wet suction technique. Endosc Ultrasound 2016; 5: 17-20
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 92 Katanuma A, Itoi T, Baron TH. et al. Bench-top testing of suction forces generated through endoscopic ultrasound-guided aspiration needles. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015; 22: 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 93 Chen JY, Ding QY, Lv Y. et al. Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 8790-8797
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 94 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ. et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 1578-1585
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 95 Kin T, Katanuma A, Yane K. et al. Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions with conventional 22-gauge needle using the slow pull technique: a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2015; 50: 900-907
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 96 Saxena P, El Zein M, Stevens T. et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing capillary suction and standard suction for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: AB539
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 97 Yamabe A, Irisawa A, Shibukawa G. et al. An experimental study to assess the best maneuver when using a reverse side-bevel histology needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E56-E61
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 98 El Haddad R, Barret M, Beuvon F. et al. The slow-pull capillary technique increases the quality of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy samples in solid pancreatic lesions. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 28: 911-916
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 99 Sahai AV, Paquin SC, Gariepy G. A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 900-903
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 100 Wani S, Gupta N, Gaddam S. et al. A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2409-2414
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 101 Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Paquin SC, Gariepy G. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology results with and without the stylet in 3364 cases. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 303-307
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 102 Seicean A, Badea R, Moldovan-Pop A. et al. Harmonic contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography for the guidance of fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic masses. Ultraschall Med 2017; 38: 174-182
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 103 Hou X, Jin Z, Xu C. et al. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a retrospective study. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0121236
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 104 Mohamadnejad M, Mullady D, Early DS. et al. Increasing number of passes beyond 4 does not increase sensitivity of detection of pancreatic malignancy by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1071-1078 e2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 105 van Riet PA, Cahen DL, Poley JW. et al. Mapping international practice patterns in EUS-guided tissue sampling: outcome of a global survey. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E360-E370
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 106 Nguyen YP, Maple JT, Zhang Q. et al. Reliability of gross visual assessment of specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1264-1270
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 107 Al-Haddad MA, Kowalski T, Siddiqui A. et al. Integrated molecular pathology accurately determines the malignant potential of pancreatic cysts. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 136-142
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 108 Khalid A, Zahid M, Finkelstein SD. et al. Pancreatic cyst fluid DNA analysis in evaluating pancreatic cysts: a report of the PANDA study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1095-102
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 109 Thornton GD, McPhail MJ, Nayagam S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 48-57
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 110 Wang QX, Xiao J, Orange M. et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 2015; 36: 1197-1209
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 111 Zhu H, Jiang F, Zhu J. et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2017; (Epub ahead of print)
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 112 Barresi L, Tarantino I, Traina M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration in pancreatic cystic lesions. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 113 Hong SK, Loren DE, Rogart JN. et al. Targeted cyst wall puncture and aspiration during EUS-FNA increases the diagnostic yield of premalignant and malignant pancreatic cysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 775-782
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 114 Lim LG, Lakhtakia S, Ang TL. et al. Factors determining diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicentre Asian study. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1751-1757
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 115 Rogart JN, Loren DE, Singu BS. et al. Cyst wall puncture and aspiration during EUS-guided fine needle aspiration may increase the diagnostic yield of mucinous cysts of the pancreas. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 164-169
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 116 Attili F, Pagliari D, Rimbas M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided histological diagnosis of a mucinous non-neoplastic pancreatic cyst using a specially designed through-the-needle microforceps. Endoscopy 2016; 48 : E188-E189
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 117 Pham KD, Engjom T, Gjelberg Kollesete H. et al. Diagnosis of a mucinous pancreatic cyst and resection of an intracystic nodule using a novel through-the-needle micro forceps. Endoscopy 2016; 48: E125-E126
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 118 Veitch AM, Vanbiervliet G, Gershlick AH. et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 385-402
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 119 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 120 Banafea O, Mghanga FP, Zhao J. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Gastroenterol 2016; 16: 108
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 121 Levy MJ, Abu Dayyeh BK, Fujii LL. et al. Prospective evaluation of adverse events following lower gastrointestinal tract EUS FNA. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 676-685
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 122 Guarner-Argente C, Shah P, Buchner A. et al. Use of antimicrobials for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective, comparative analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 123 Klein A, Qi R, Nagubandi S. et al. Single-dose intra-procedural ceftriaxone during endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts is safe and effective: results from a single tertiary center. Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30: 237-241
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 124 Marinos E, Lee S, Jones B. et al. Outcomes of single-dose peri-procedural antibiotic prophylaxis for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2014; 2: 391-396
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 125 Qin SY, Zhou Y, Li P. et al. Diagnostic efficacy of cell block immunohistochemistry, smear cytology, and liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: a single-institution experience. PLoS One 2014; 9: e108762
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 126 Weynand B, Borbath I, Galant C. et al. Optimizing specimen collection and laboratory procedures reduces the non-diagnostic rate for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions of the pancreas. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 127 Kopelman Y, Marmor S, Ashkenazi I. et al. Value of EUS-FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours. Cytopathology 2011; 22: 174-178
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 128 LeBlanc JK, Emerson RE, Dewitt J. et al. A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 389-394
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 129 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LF. et al. Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2008; 38: 246-251
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 130 de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV. et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30: 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 131 Kim JH, Lee SJ, Moon SH. et al. Incremental value of cell block preparations over conventional smears alone in the evaluation of EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses. Hepatogastroenterology 2014; 61: 2117-2122
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 132 Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V. et al. Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 973-981
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 133 Rong L, Kida M, Yamauchi H. et al. Factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for upper gastrointestinal submucosal or extraluminal solid mass lesions. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 358-363
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 134 Moller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T. et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 60-99
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 135 Noda Y, Fujita N, Kobayashi G. et al. Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 868-875
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar