Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 16, 2025; 17(4): 101998
Published online Apr 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i4.101998
Published online Apr 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i4.101998
Table 1 Patient details and pancreatic mass characteristics (n = 50)
Characteristics | n (%) |
mean age | 64.1 |
Range | (36-88) |
Gender | |
Female | 26 |
Male | 24 |
Mean pancreatic mass size (cm) | |
Mean | 3.47 |
Range | 1.7-7.0 |
Pancreatic mass location | |
Head | 31 (62) |
Uncinate | 6 (12) |
Neck | 6 (12) |
Body | 5 (10) |
Tail | 2 (4) |
Vascular invasion | 32 (64) |
Venous vascular invasion | |
Portal vein | 16 (51.6) |
Superior mesenteric vein | 19 (61.3) |
Splenic vein | 13 (41.9) |
Table 2 Pathological analysis diagnosis
Definitive diagnosis (n = 50) | Standard needle (n = 50) | Franseen needle (n = 50) | ||
Adenocarcinoma/pancreatic cancer (n = 38) | n = 31 | n = 35 | ||
Benign lesion | Chronic pancreatitis (n = 3) | Benign lesion | Chronic pancreatitis (n = 2) | |
Mucinous neoplasia (n = 1) | Mucinous neoplasia (n = 1) | |||
Inconclusive (n = 3) | Inconclusive (n = 0) | |||
Neuroendocrine tumor | n = 4 | n = 4 | ||
Metastasis | n = 2 | n = 2 | ||
Lymphoma | Chromic pancreatitis (n = 1); Lymphoma (n = 0) | Chronic pancreatitis (n = 1); Lymphoma (n = 0) | ||
Plasmocitoma | n = 1 | n = 1 | ||
Solid pseudopapillary tumor | n = 1 | n = 1 | ||
Chronic pancreatitis | n = 3 | n = 3 |
Table 3 Performance of standard needle for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy
Diagnostic method | Disease | ||
Pancreatic malignancy1 (n = 47) | Chronic pancreatis (n = 3) | Total | |
Positive for malignancy | 38 | 1 | 39 |
Negative for malignancy | 9 | 2 | 11 |
Total | 47 | 3 | 50 |
95%CI | |||
Sensitivity | 0.81 (0.67-0.91) | ||
Specificity | 0.67 (0.09-0.99) | ||
PPV | 0.97 (0.87-1.00) | ||
NPV | 0.18 (0.02-0.52) | ||
Accuracy | 0.80 (0.66-0.90) |
Table 4 Performance of Franseen needle for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy
Diagnostic method | Disease | ||
Pancreatic malignancy1 (n = 47) | Chronic pancreatis (n = 3) | Total | |
Positive for malignancy | 43 | 1 | 44 |
Negative for malignancy | 4 | 2 | 6 |
Total | 47 | 3 | 50 |
95%CI | |||
Sensitivity | 0.91 (0.83-0.98) | ||
Specificity | 0.67 (0.09-0.98) | ||
PPV | 0.98 (0.88-1.00) | ||
NPV | 0.33 (0.04-0.78) | ||
Accuracy | 0.90 (0.78-0.97) |
Table 5 Comparison of the diagnostic performance of standard (fine needle aspiration) and Franseen (fine needle biopsy) needles
Metrics | FNA | FNB | Statistical difference | P value1 |
Sensitivity | 0.809 | 0.915 | 5.000 | 0.025 |
Specificity | 0.667 | 0.667 | - | - |
PPV | 0.974 | 0.977 | 0.913 | 0.361 |
NPV | 0.182 | 0.333 | 2.202 | 0.028 |
Accuracy | 0.800 | 0.900 | 3.200 | 0.074 |
Table 6 Comparison of procured histologic tissue areas (in mm2) between standard needle versus Franseen needle
Standard needle | Franseen needle | P value | |
Mean total tissue area, mm2 (SD) | 1.16 (0.17) | 2.07 (0.22) | 0.001 |
Median | 0.45 | 1.09 | |
75% IQR | 1.53 | 2.89 | |
Range | 0-9.76 | 0-9.22 | |
Mean total tumor area, mm2 (SD) | 0.42 (0.09) | 0.47 (0.09) | 0.8 |
Median | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
75% IQR | 0.51 | 0.50 | |
Range | 0-7.03 | 0-4.88 |
Table 7 Randomized clinical trials comparing fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic tumors
Ref. | FNA (n) | FNB (n) | ROSE | Randomization | Technique of sampling | Sensitivity for malignancy (95%CI)-FNA | Sensitivity for malignancy (95%CI)-FNB | P value | Accuracy malignancy (95%CI)-FNA | Accuracy malignancy (95%CI)-FNB | P value |
Bang et al[14] | 22-gauge (28) | Reverse bevel (28) | Yes | Sequence of the needle | Capillarity and dry suction | 100 | 83.3 | 0.26 | |||
Bang et al[15] | 22-gauge (46) | Franseen 22-gauge (46) | Yes | Sequence of the needle | 82.6 | 97.8 | 0.03 | ||||
Noh et al[16] | 22-gauge (30) | Reverse bevel 22-gauge (30) | Yes | Sequence of the needle | Dry suction | 95 | 93.3 | 0.564 | |||
Vanbiervliet et al[17] | 22-gauge (39) | Reverse bevel 22-gauge (41) | Yes | First needle FNA | Dry suction | 92.5 | 90 | 0.68 | |||
Mavrogenis et al[18] | 22-gauge (19) | Reverse bevel 25-gauge (19) | No | Sequence of the needle | Capillarity and dry suction | 89.5 (66.82-98.39) | 89.5 (66.82-98.39) | 84.8 (67.3-94.2) | 84.8 (67.3-94.2) | ||
Kovacevic et al[19] | 22-gauge (33) | 22-gauge (31) | No | Sequence of the needle | Capillarity | 65.5% | 89.7% | > 0.5 | 69.7 (51.3-84.4) | 90.3 (74.2-98%) | |
Our study | 22-gauge (50) | Franseen 22-gauge (50) | No | Sequence of the needle | Capillarity and dry suction | 0.83 (0.69-0.92) | 0.91 (0.80-0.98) | 0.84 (0.71-0.93) | 0.92 (0.81-0.98) |
- Citation: Paduani GF, Felipe LM, De Paulo GA, Lenz L, Martins BC, Matuguma SE, Safatle-Ribeiro AV, De Mello ES, Maluf-Filho F. Prospective randomized study comparing Franseen 22-gauge vs standard 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 17(4): 101998
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v17/i4/101998.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i4.101998