Comparison of 19-gauge FNA and 22-gauge FNB needles for the EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the lymphadenopathy and malignant lymphoma diagnosis: A multicenter retrospective study
Background and Objectives: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using a 19-gauge FNA needle can safely obtain sufficient tissue samples for the evaluation of lymphadenopathy. FNB needles can also provide adequate tissue, and 22-gauge needles are generally easier to puncture than 19-gauge needles. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 19-gauge FNA and 22-gauge FNB needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy. Methods: Among the 411 patients with lymphadenopathy, 221 underwent an EUS-FNA procedure using 19-gauge FNA or 22-gauge FNB needles. Patient characteristics, puncture procedures, and the accuracy of the cytological and histological diagnoses of lymphadenopathy were analyzed. Results: There were 116 and 105 patients in the 19-gauge FNA and 22-gauge FNB groups, respectively. The median lymph node size was significantly larger in the 19-gauge FNA group (29 mm vs. 23 mm, P < 0.01). Cytological and histological accuracies were significantly higher in the 19-gauge FNA group (91% vs. 63%, P < 0.01; 93% vs. 82%, P = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the use of 19-gauge FNA was significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy (cytology: odds ratio = 5.72, P < 0.01; histology: odds ratio = 3.38, P < 0.01). For malignant lymphoma diagnosis, immunohistochemical evaluation rates were similar between groups, whereas flow cytometry and cytogenetic sensitivities were significantly higher with 19-gauge FNA (90% vs . 55%, P < 0.01; and 68% vs. 14%, P < 0.01). Post-puncture infection was observed in only 1 patient in the 19-gauge FNA group. Conclusion: The use of 19-gauge FNA needles appeared to be a good option for diagnosing lymphadenopathy, considering that no significant difference was observed in the occurrence of adverse events.
Authors
- Akinori Maruta (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-715X)
- Masahito Shimizu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1151-2058)
- Takuji Iwashita (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4978-1787)
- Mitsuru Okuno (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8989-6437)
- Hisashi Tsurumi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9262-5790)
- Ichiro Yasuda (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6888-0310)
- Yuhei Iwasa (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1942-5971)
- Eiichi Tomita (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2836-0414)
- Yusuke Kito (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1373-986X)
- Tsuyoshi Mukai (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-9475)
- Ryuichi Tezuka (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7079-6222)
- Keisuke Kawashima (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2507-7066)
- Keisuke Iwata (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0564-8669)
- Shinya Uemura (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3283-1680)
- Takuya Koizumi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3039-3733)
- Hisataka Moriwaki
- Fumiya Kataoka
- Yosuke Ohashi
- Naoki Watanabe
- Takeshi Hara
- Shota Iwata
Institutions
- Shiga University of Medical Science (JP)
- Gifu Municipal Hospital (JP)
- Matsunami General Hospital (JP)
- Gifu University Hospital (JP)
- University of Toyama (JP)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Endoscopic Ultrasound
- Published
- 2026-09-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1097/eus.0000000000000211
- Primary Topic
- Lymphadenopathy Diagnosis and Analysis
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00