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

Table 2 Prospective comparative trials of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for subepithelial lesions

Ref.	Study design	Number of subjects	Needle size (FNA, FNB)	Lesions sampled	Diagnostic yield/specimen adequacy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Diagnostic accuracy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Number of needle passes needed (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)	Comments
Kim et al[47], 2014	RCT	22	22 G, 22 G Procore	All SELs	20% vs 75% (P = 0.01)	N/A	4 vs 2 (P = 0.025)
Iwai et al[43], 2017	RCT, crossover	23	Variable, variable Procore	Gastric SELs	73.9% vs 91.3% (P = 0.12)	N/A	N/A	Histology positive significantly higher in EUS-FNB for 21 mm-30 mm lesions
Hedenstrom et al[48], 2018	RCT, crossover	70	Variable, variable reverse-bevel Wilson-Cook	All SELs	N/A	49% vs 83% (P < 0.001)	N/A	Extramural lesions lower sensitivity for EUS-FNA but not EUS-FNB)
Nagula et al[49], 2018	RCT	18	Variable, variable Procore	All SELs	83.3% vs 75% (NS)	N/A	2 vs 2 (NS)

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; SELs: Subepithelial lesions.