Site of puncture in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle biopsy: Does it change diagnostic outcome?

We read with great interest the study by Ko et al.,1 comparing diagnostic outcomes according to puncture sites in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) for pancreatic lesions >3 cm. Sampling from the center and periphery of lesions showed equivalent diagnostic accuracy in detecting malignancy. However, when samples from both locations were combined, the diagnostic yield was higher than samples from either of the locations alone. Although the study adds to the currently limited literature on this topic, a few issues need to be addressed. First, the lesions were punctured, alternating between the periphery and the center, allowing tissue acquisition from multiple sites within the lesion. In the fanning technique also, after the initial puncture, the trajectory of the needle is altered using either the big wheel or elevator in the endoscope, allowing tissue acquisition from multiple sites within the lesion.2 Thus, the present technique seems like a variation of the fanning technique rather than a novel one. A recent trial reported that the fanning technique has a diagnostic utility comparable to contrast-guided FNB.3 Thus, the authors need to explain how the present technique is different and superior to the fanning technique. Second, dry suction was used for all patients in the present study. In a previous meta-analysis, wet suction was shown to be slightly better than other suction methods.4 Therefore, it is possible that combining wet suction with this method could have improved the diagnostic outcome. Third, the EZ Shot 3 needle is a fine-needle aspiration rather than a biopsy needle. Lastly, the effect of macroscopic on-site evaluation on the diagnostic outcome could not be evaluated.5 Although the present study adds to the evolving techniques for improving diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNB, further studies are required to validate the present study's findings. Author declares no conflict of interest for this article.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Digestive Endoscopy
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14965
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.28
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Site of puncture in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle biopsy: Does it change diagnostic outcome?

C. S. Mishra, Suprabhat Giri
1 citations
Digestive Endoscopy
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
0.28
article

Site of puncture in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle biopsy: Does it change diagnostic outcome?

C. S. Mishra, Suprabhat Giri
article en
1 citations

Abstract

We read with great interest the study by Ko et al.,1 comparing diagnostic outcomes according to puncture sites in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) for pancreatic lesions >3 cm. Sampling from the center and periphery of lesions showed equivalent diagnostic accuracy in detecting malignancy. However, when samples from both locations were combined, the diagnostic yield was higher than samples from either of the locations alone. Although the study adds to the currently limited literature on this topic, a few issues need to be addressed. First, the lesions were punctured, alternating between the periphery and the center, allowing tissue acquisition from multiple sites within the lesion. In the fanning technique also, after the initial puncture, the trajectory of the needle is altered using either the big wheel or elevator in the endoscope, allowing tissue acquisition from multiple sites within the lesion.2 Thus, the present technique seems like a variation of the fanning technique rather than a novel one. A recent trial reported that the fanning technique has a diagnostic utility comparable to contrast-guided FNB.3 Thus, the authors need to explain how the present technique is different and superior to the fanning technique. Second, dry suction was used for all patients in the present study. In a previous meta-analysis, wet suction was shown to be slightly better than other suction methods.4 Therefore, it is possible that combining wet suction with this method could have improved the diagnostic outcome. Third, the EZ Shot 3 needle is a fine-needle aspiration rather than a biopsy needle. Lastly, the effect of macroscopic on-site evaluation on the diagnostic outcome could not be evaluated.5 Although the present study adds to the evolving techniques for improving diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNB, further studies are required to validate the present study's findings. Author declares no conflict of interest for this article.

Digestive EndoscopyVol. 37(2)
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar (IN)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
0.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Site of puncture in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle biopsy: Does it change diagnostic outcome? — C. S. Mishra, Suprabhat Giri · Digestive Endoscopy (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS