Procore and Flexible 19 Gauge Needle Can Replace Trucut Biopsy Needle?

Ji Young Bang; Shyam Varadarajulu

doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.503

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 46(5); 2013 > Article

Special Issue Article of IDEN 2013 Review Procore and Flexible 19 Gauge Needle Can Replace Trucut Biopsy Needle?: Ji Young Bang, Shyam Varadarajulu; Clinical Endoscopy 2013;46(5):503-505.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.503
Published online: September 30, 2013

Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, FL, USA.

Correspondence: Shyam Varadarajulu. Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, 601 East Rollins St, Orlando, FL 32803, USA. Tel: +1-407-303-2570, Fax: +1-407-303-2585, svaradarajulu@yahoo.com

• Received: May 8, 2013 • Revised: June 24, 2013 • Accepted: June 24, 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,598 Views
57 Download
13 Crossref
17 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is routinely performed for establishing tissue diagnosis in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The concept of delivering chemotherapy based on molecular markers and the ability to establish a reliable diagnosis in lieu of an onsite cytopathologist has fuelled the recent trend in procuring core tissue by means of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy. To overcome the technical limitations induced by the rigidity of the Trucut biopsy needle, a new ProCore needle with reverse bevel technology has been developed. Recent data suggests that the newly developed flexible 19 gauge needle can also procure core tissue and has easy maneuverability when navigating the transduodenal route. Irrespective of the needles being used, the best clinical outcomes can be attained only by practicing evidence-based techniques, procuring adequate quantity of sample for ancillary studies, and processing the specimens appropriately.
Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy; Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; Trucut biopsy; ProCore; Flexible 19 G

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe, accurate and inexpensive technique, and the interpretation is reliable when performed by trained cytopathologists. However, the diagnostic sensitivity is superior only when the specimen is assessed onsite for diagnostic adequacy and most institutions do not have skilled individuals to render onsite assessment. A fine needle biopsy (FNB) specimen contains core tissue with better preservation of cellular architecture than an FNA specimen and therefore has greater diagnostic accuracy and provides more tissue for ancillary studies. It may be specifically requested by pathologists to establish a definitive diagnosis in challenging cases when FNA is inconclusive or for identification of molecular markers that are specific for neoplasms such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, malignant melanoma, and metastatic lung or breast cancer. To meet these expectations, a 19 gauge (G) Trucut needle biopsy (EUS-TNB; Cook Endoscopy, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) was developed to procure larger amounts of tissue with conserved architecture that would enable histological analysis. The overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TNB for evaluating suspicious lesions at various sites in the body is reported to be 75% to 84% and 61% to 67.5% for pancreatic masses.1,2

Procore needle

While the EUS-TNB technique has some advantages over FNA, the rigidity induced by the 19 G caliber needle and the mechanical friction of the firing mechanism produced by the torqued echoendoscope, limits its use for evaluating pancreatic head and duodenal lesions. To overcome this limitation, a new 19 G FNB device was recently developed with ProCore (Cook Endoscopy) reverse bevel technology to enable the acquisition of core specimens. In a recent study from Europe, histologic samples were obtained successfully with this Procore needle in a majority of patients with a diagnostic accuracy of more than 90%.3 However, some technical difficulties were still encountered when performing transduodenal passes. The same FNB device is also available in a 22 and 25 G platform to facilitate easy transduodenal sampling. In a recent randomized trial that compared the 22 G ProCore and the standard 22 G FNA needle for sampling of pancreatic mass lesions, there was no significant difference in the rates of diagnostic sufficiency (100% vs. 89.3%), technical failure (0% vs. 3.6%), or complications (3.6% for both) between the standard FNA and ProCore needles, respectively.4 Patients in whom diagnosis was established in passes 1, 2, and 3 were 64.3% versus 67.9%, 10.7% versus 17.9%, and 25% versus 3.6%, respectively, for the FNA and ProCore cohorts. Also, there was no significant difference in procurement of histologic core (100% vs. 83.3%) or the presence of diagnostic histologic specimens (66.7% vs. 80%) between the FNA and ProCore cohorts, respectively. In a prospective study of 50 patients with solid pancreatic masses, EUS-guided sampling was performed using the 25 G ProCore needle.5 Malignancy was diagnosed in 38 patients on the first pass, with a cumulative sensitivity of 83%, 91%, and 96% on passes 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Although visible core was reported in 46 patients (92%), histologic core was seen in only 16 patients (32%). Histologic analysis showed malignancy in 29 patients on the first pass, with a cumulative sensitivity of 63% and 87% on pass 1 and passes 1 to 4, respectively. A summary of findings from key abstracts presented at Digestive Diseases Week 2013 that compared the FNA and ProCore needle is shown in Table 1.6-13 As evident from the table, heterogeneity in clinical trials makes interpretation of results difficult. Well designed randomized trials comparing the different gauge ProCore and standard FNA needles in pancreatic masses and other solid organ lesions is required to establish conclusive results.

Flexible 19 G needle

The role of the standard 19 G FNA needle for yielding histological samples was assessed prospectively in a recent study.14 Of the 120 patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition, the procedure was technically successful in 119 patients (98.9%) and adequate histological sample was obtained in 116 (97.5%). A major limitation of the study was that patients with pancreatic head or uncinate masses were excluded. As the standard 19 G needle is too stiff to navigate the transduodenal route, a flexible 19 G needle made of nitinol has been recently introduced. In a pilot study of 50 patients, which included several patients that underwent EUS-FNA via the transduodenal route, tissue acquisition was successful and adequate for cytologic assessment in 100% of patients and satisfactory histologic specimens were procured in 94.7% of patients.15 Needle dysfunction or procedural complications were not encountered in this study.

While manufacturer guidelines must be followed when using specially designed biopsy needles, when using a 19 G needle, to minimize bloodiness, one must not use suction or a stylet and repeated jabbing at the same area should be avoided. It is usually not necessary to perform more than three FNB passes in a lesion as repeated biopsies are more likely to yield blood clots.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available ProCore and flexible 19 G needles are a significant advancement in acquiring core tissue during EUS-guided procedures. Although there are no randomized trials comparing the performance of the ProCore and flexible 19 G needle, the decision to choose either needle should be based on operator preference and costs. However, EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a multistep procedure and must be patient-centered. Providing the correct type of sample based on clinical need, sampling the lesion using the best evidence-based techniques, procuring adequate tissue for ancillary studies and closely collaborating with cytopathologists and oncologists are all important in order to have good technical and clinical outcomes.

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K, Aithal G. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:584–591.Article PubMed PDF
2. Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN, Rotterdam H, Lightdale CJ, Stevens PD. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:185–190.Article PubMed
3. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1189–1196.Article PubMed
4. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:321–327.Article PubMed PMC
5. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB, et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:909–915.Article PubMed
6. Nagula S, Pourmand K, Aslanian HR, et al. EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) vs. EUS-fine needle biopsy (FNB) for solid mass lesions: interim analysis of a large multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB357–AB358.Article
7. Strand DS, Shami VM, Sauer BG, Wang AY. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle aspiration is superior to EUS-guided 22-gauge core needle biopsy in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB403.Article
8. Korenblit J, Singh H, Butt M, et al. Prospective randomized trial of the 22G EchoTip Procore™ needle versus the 22G Cook EchoTip Ultra 3® needle in patients with solid mass lesions undergoing EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA). Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB178.Article
9. Vanbiervliet G, Fumex F, Saint-Paul MC, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial with crossover of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using 22G ProCore and 22G EchoTip needle for solid pancreatic mass: the "Picore" study. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB178.Article
10. Ramay F, Singh M, Sood V. Retrospective study comparing yield of EUS 22G FNA/FNB of abnormal lymph nodes: single tertiary referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB360.Article
11. Choi HJ, Moon JH, Kim HK, et al. Comparison of EUS-fine needle biopsy with EUS-fine needle aspiration as a historical control for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB401.Article
12. Singh M, Ramay F, Sood V. EUS FNA/FNB of pancreatic mass lesions: single tertiary referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB402.
13. De La Mora-Levy JG, Florez-Sarmiento CF, Alonso-Larraga JO, Campuzano JO, Del Monte JS, Hernandez-Guerrero A. Direct comparison between Procore™, and non-Procore™ fine needle aspiration biopsy needles: does it make any difference in expert hands? Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB360.Article
14. Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:504–510.Article PubMed
15. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:336–343.Article PubMed

Table 1

Select Studies Comparing the Performance of ProCore versus Fine Needle Aspiration Needles That Were Presented at Digestive Diseases Week 2013

Gi gauge; FNA, fine needle aspiration; NS, not significant.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy
Zhiwang Li, Wei Liu, Xiaoda Xu, Peiyu Li
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2022; 56(8): 668. CrossRef
Examination of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration using a puncture needle with a side trap
Kazuhito Miyazaki, Yuya Hirasawa, Masaharu Aga, Naoto Aiko, Yusuke Hamakawa, Yuri Taniguchi, Yuki Misumi, Yoko Agemi, Tsuneo Shimokawa, Hiroyuki Hayashi, Katsuhiko Naoki, Hiroaki Okamoto
Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Feasibility and Accuracy of Transduodenal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Lesions Using a 19-Gauge Flexible Needle: A Multicenter Study
Germana de Nucci, Maria Chiara Petrone, Nicola Imperatore, Edoardo Forti, Roberto Grassia, Silvia Giovanelli, Laura Ottaviani, Vincenzo Mirante, Giuseppe Sabatino, Carlo Fabbri, Mauro Manno, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Gianpiero Manes
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(2): 229. CrossRef
Current status of newer generation endoscopic ultrasound core needles in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions
Amin K. Soltani, Kumar Krishnan
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology.2020; 9(5): 389. CrossRef
Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology
Michael Hocke, Barbara Braden, Christian Jenssen, Christoph F. Dietrich
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2018; 33(1): 36. CrossRef
Slow-Pull Using a Fanning Technique Is More Useful Than the Standard Suction Technique in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses
Jae Min Lee, Hong Sik Lee, Jong Jin Hyun, Jung Min Lee, In Kyung Yoo, Seung Han Kim, Hyuk Soon Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Bora Keum, Yeon Seok Seo, Yoon Tae Jeen, Hoon Jai Chun, Soon Ho Um, Chang Duck Kim
Gut and Liver.2018; 12(3): 360. CrossRef
Prospective Assessment of the Performance of a New Fine Needle Biopsy Device for EUS-Guided Sampling of Solid Lesions
Ihab I. El Hajj, Howard Wu, Sarah Reuss, Melissa Randolph, Akeem Harris, Mark A. Gromski, Mohammad Al-Haddad
Clinical Endoscopy.2018; 51(6): 576. CrossRef
EUS-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal disease: a comparison of diagnostic yield between two core biopsy needles
Michael Sai Lai Sey, Mohammad Al-Haddad, Thomas F. Imperiale, Kathleen McGreevy, Jingmei Lin, John M. DeWitt
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2016; 83(2): 347. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?
Andrew C Storm, Linda S Lee
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(39): 8658. CrossRef
Yields and Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided 19-Gauge Trucut Biopsy versus 22-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosing Gastric Subepithelial Tumors
Hee Kyong Na, Jeong Hoon Lee, Young Soo Park, Ji Yong Ahn, Kwi-Sook Choi, Do Hoon Kim, Kee Don Choi, Ho June Song, Gin Hyug Lee, Hwoon-Yong Jung, Jin-Ho Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2015; 48(2): 152. CrossRef
Tumor sólido pseudopapilar de páncreas con diagnóstico preoperatorio por ecoendoscopia
María del Carmen García Gavilán, Isabel María Méndez Sánchez, Andrés Sánchez Yagüe, Luis Robles Cabeza, Ana M Betancourt Zambrano, Martha González Bárcenas, María Ángeles Romero Ordoñez, María del Carmen López Vega, Andrés Sánchez Cantos
Gastroenterología y Hepatología.2015; 38(1): 42. CrossRef
Fine-Needle Biopsy: Should This Be the First Choice in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition?
Eun Young Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2014; 47(5): 425. CrossRef
What is the best method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration? Needle types and aspiration techniques
Kazuo Hara, Nobumasa Mizuno, Susumu Hijioka, Hiroshi Imaoka, Masahiro Tajika, Tsutomu Tanaka, Makoto Ishihara, Yasumasa Niwa, Kenji Yamao
Gastrointestinal Intervention.2014; 3(2): 104. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.