Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Table 1 Prospective comparative trials of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for solid pancreatic mass lesions

Ref.	Study design	Number of subjects	Needle size (FNA, FNB)	Diagnostic yield/specimen adequacy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Diagnostic accuracy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Number of passes needed (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Comments
Bang et al[9], 2012	RCT	56	22 G, 22 G Procore	66.7% vs 80% (NS)	N/A	1.61 vs 1.28 (NS)
Aadam et al[30], 2015	RCT	73	Variable, variable	78.4% vs 91.7% (NS)	67.5% vs 83.3% (NS)	N/A
Tian et al[31], 2018	RCT	36	22 G, 22 G ProCore	83.3% vs 83.3%	N/A	1.83 vs 1.11 (P = 0.049)
Hedenstrom et al[33], 2018	RCT, crossover	68	25G, 22G reverse bevel Wilson Cook	N/A	78% vs 69% (NS)	N/A	In a subset of non-pancreatic adenocarcinoma, combined modality (EUS-FNA + FNB) was significantly higher compared to EUS-FNA alone
Oppong et al[34], 2020	RCT, crossover	108	Variable, variable Sharkcore	71% vs 82% (OR 3.23, sig)	64% vs 79% (OR 4.79, sig)	N/A	Shorter sampling time and pathology viewing time with EUS-FNB. Equivalent cost analysis.
Kandel et al[35], 2020	RCT, crossover	50	25 G, variable Sharkcore	100% vs 86% (NS)	100% vs 100%	N/A	Primary outcome of DNA concentration, significantly higher in EUS-FNB than in EUS-FNA
Wang et al[26], 2017	Meta-analysis	921	Variable, variable	81.4% vs 88.3% (OR 0.57, sig)	84.0% vs 87.8% (NS)	Fewer in EUS-FNB
Li et al[27], 2018	Meta-analysis	1382	Variable, variable	82.3% vs 89.4% (OR 1.83, sig)	84.3% vs 89.6% (OR 1.62, sig)	Fewer in EUS-FNB

EUS-FNA: Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration; EUS-FNB: Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; N/A: Not applicable; NS: Not significant.