Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507
Peer-review started: March 25, 2021
First decision: July 15, 2021
Revised: July 24, 2021
Accepted: October 20, 2021
Article in press: October 20, 2021
Published online: December 6, 2021
Processing time: 250 Days and 7.1 Hours
While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed with the capability of tissue extraction for histological evaluation.
To better understand the comparative effectiveness of FNA vs FNB and possible advantages of EUS-guided FNB for solid lesions in daily clinical practice
Evaluate the diagnostic test characteristics of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB sampling techniques with and without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
Multi-center, retrospective study conducted at 5 hospitals in Massachusetts, United States following the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies recommendations.
A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions underwent EUS-guided sampling. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA. On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE.
FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions.
Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.