Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2019; 11(8): 454-471
Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
Ref | Study design | N°Lesions,pan-creatic | Rose | Needles (G),FNA vs FNB | Overall diagnostic yield | Sample adequacy | Comments |
[4] | RCT | (56) | Yes | 22 vs 22 Procore | Equivalent | Equivalent | |
[29] | Meta-analysis (11 observational study and 4 RCTs) | 1024 (mainly pancreatic and lymph nodes) | #6 NO #9 Yes | 19 (only one study); 22 and 25 G vs 22 | Equivalent | Equivalent | in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02) and FNB required less passes |
[50] | RCT | 194 (100) | No | 22 vs 22 Procore | 84 vs 90 | Equivalent | Lower n° of passes for FNB vs FNA needle (2 vs 3) |
[51] | RCT | 377 (249) | Yes | 22 vs 22 Procore | Equivalent | 81.7 vs 92.6 | |
[52] | RCT | (36) | No | 22 vs 22 Procore | Equivalent | Equivalent | 1.1 passes needed for FNB vs 1.83 passes for FNA (P < 0.05) |
[53] | Meta-analysis (8 RCT) | 921 | No | 22, 25, and 19 (only one study) G vs 22 | Equivalent | Equivalent | Few passes for FNB |
[54] | Retrospective | 42 (12) | Yes | 22 or 25 | Equivalent | Equivalent | |
[55] | Retrospective | (87) | No | 22 vs 22 Franseen | Equivalent | Equivalent | |
[56] | Retrospective | (76) | No | 22 vs 25 | 32.4 vs 60 | Equivalent | |
[57] | RCT | (214) | No | 25 vs 25 Procore | Equivalent | 69.4 vs 81 | |
[58] | RCT | (116) | Yes | 22, 25 vs 22, 25 Procore | Equivalent | Equivalent | Few passes for FNB |
[59] | Meta-analysis (7 comparative studies and 4 single cohort studies) | 896 (pancreatic and lymph nodes) | Only in 4 studies | 22 and 25 | Equivalent | Equivalent | |
[60] | RCT | 140 (73) | YES | 19, 22, 25 | 67 vs 90 | Equivalent | Diagnostic yield only for pancreatic masses was equivalent |
[61] | Prospective comparative | 145 (69) | No | 22 vs 22 Procore | Equivalent | Equivalent | Few passes for FNB |
[62] | RCT | 58 (16) | No | 22 vs 22 Procore | Equivalent | Equivalent | Few passes for FNB |
[63] | RCT (13 centers) | 608 (312) | In 7 centers | 25 vs 20 Procore | 44 vs 77 | Equivalent |
Ref | Study design | N°Lesions,pan-creatic | Rose | Needles | Gauge | Diagnostic yield, % | Sample adequacy, % | Comments |
[64] | Cohort | (201) | No | Opposing bevel vs reverse bevel | 22-25 vs 20-22-25 | 71 vs 90 | 87 vs 99 | Opposing bevel needle resulted superior |
[65] | Cohort | 194 (100) | Only in 12% of cases | Franseen vs fork tip | 22 | 64 vs 85 | The use of ROSE is a confounding factor | Fork tip seems superior, but the study lack of methodology |
[66] | RCT | (50) | Yes | Franseen vs fork tip | 22 | > 90%, equivalent | 94 vs 98 | Equivalent |
[67] | Cohort | (66) | Procore | 22 vs 25 | 87.5 vs 82.1 | 98 vs 95 | Equivalent |
- Citation: Conti CB, Cereatti F, Grassia R. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(8): 454-471
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i8/454.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454